Essay on should we destroy all nuclear weapons

Need Writing Help?
Contents:
  1. The Sanitized Rhetoric That Makes Nuclear War More Likely | Essay | Zócalo Public Square
  2. Essay on Nuclear Weapons
  3. Most Popular Videos
  4. The Growing Dangers of the New Nuclear-Arms Race

Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.

The Sanitized Rhetoric That Makes Nuclear War More Likely | Essay | Zócalo Public Square

First it was North Korea and now Iran. As the world tries to decrease the possession of nuclear weapons, these countries are now building them for a sense of power or use in the future. No matter what the reason is, the great intimidation it causes is troubling and needs to be ended. During the Cold War, countries having nuclear weapons meant that they will think rationally and not start a war since they know the reality which is that they are dealing with weapons of mass destruction Free Essays words 1. The issues surrounding them have only grown and now Iran might get nuclear weapons. Will arming Iran with nuclear weapons bring an increase in peace.

Not that long ago, American government did all it could to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, now they are attempting to negotiate a way for them to have them. Increasing the amount of nuclear weapons and countries that have them will only exacerbate a doomsday-like future and decrease the time it takes to get there Strong Essays words 2. That weaponry is nuclear weapons.


  1. essay about my favorite teacher in history.
  2. Popular Essays;
  3. oil and gas industry research paper;
  4. whats a good essay writing service;
  5. bound copy of dissertation.
  6. But Nuclear Hysteria Does;
  7. Nuclear Weapon Production Of Nuclear Weapons Essay.

Nuclear weapons pose a serious worldwide destruction. The current nuclear stockpile of the United States is enough to destroy the world at least four times over. Even though with the signing of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NTP and recent announcements by the current white house administration to reduce nuclear stockpile, there has to be a more aggressive methods to ensure to reduce the United States Nuclear Stockpile Strong Essays words 4. As the bible verse above says, weapons come as a power from God and are not of this world; however, is it possible that we have gotten to the point where we use these gifts from God in an unjust way.

Nuclear weapons have become one of the best-kept worldwide secrets since The questions, why Honduras and south American countries should be interest in nuclear disarmament. Those question can be consider by nonproliferation activist and experts as a superfluous but it might reflect a wider reality With modern technology we have reached a point that at the push of a button we could destroy our entire planet.

Essay on Nuclear Weapons

The question now is, are the weapons needed for protection, or should they be destroyed in an effort to save the world from potential destruction. There are no right answers, only the loss of power or the loss of humanity. Which should we choose. We must all learn the dangers of weapons of mass destruction to decide which side to stand up for Strong Essays words 3.

But weapons that risk catastrophic and irreversible humanitarian consequences cannot seriously be viewed as protecting civilians or humanity as a whole. Throughout history, humanitarian disasters have often been the catalyst for the adoption of new laws to prevent further suffering, deaths and atrocities in war.

One such example was the use of poison gas in the First World War, which led to the adoption of the Geneva Protocol and the subsequent banning of chemical and biological weapons. Yet today, 70 years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki — names that recall humanitarian disasters like no other — clear progress towards the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons is lacking.

Nuclear weapons are the one weapon of mass destruction on which we are still confronted with a legal gap. We recognize the efforts that have been made and the fundamental importance of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT and all the commitments it contains, as well as other efforts to advance nuclear disarmament. But in light of the potential humanitarian consequences, progress in the field of disarmament is, as of now, insufficient. Five years ago my predecessor forcefully reiterated the ICRC's call for the non-use and elimination of nuclear weapons.

The UN Security Council Summit and the US and Russian presidents had the previous year committed to "create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons. We were heartened that in May all NPT States Parties recognized, for the first time, the "catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons" and that nuclear-weapon States Parties committed to accelerating progress on the steps leading to nuclear disarmament and to undertaking further efforts to reduce and ultimately eliminate all types of nuclear weapons.

I have invited the diplomatic community back here today because the ICRC is gravely concerned that these undertakings are at risk. In three months' time the commitment to move towards a world without nuclear weapons will again be addressed in the framework of the NPT Review Conference.

This is a pivotal moment for the Treaty and for efforts to ensure that nuclear weapons are never again used. Much has happened since the last Review Conference. There are new developments and perspectives that the ICRC believes States must take into account as they prepare for the Conference and for any future work to address the dangers of nuclear weapons. The Review Conference will have before it extensive and, in some areas, new information on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. Thanks to the conferences held in Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna, the international community now has a much clearer grasp of the risk that nuclear weapons might be used or accidentally detonated and the effects that such an event would have on people and societies around the globe, as well as on the environment.

These conferences have confirmed and expanded what the ICRC learned from its experience in Hiroshima.

Aeon for Friends

Here are some of the key points that we take away from these meetings:. Testimonies by nuclear experts and former nuclear force officers have shown that accidental nuclear-weapon detonations remain a very real danger. Malfunctions, mishaps, false alarms and misinterpreted information have nearly led to the intentional or accidental detonation of nuclear weapons on numerous occasions since The non-use of nuclear weapons over the past 70 years provides no assurance that such weapons will not be used in the future.

Most Popular Videos

Only the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons can prevent the severe humanitarian consequences that would entail. In reality, the growing number of States that possess nuclear weapons and the potential for non-State actors to acquire them or related materials increases the risk of both deliberate and accidental detonations. The fact that an estimated 1, nuclear warheads remain on "high alert" status, ready to be launched within minutes, further amplifies those risks. Calls since the end of the Cold War to reverse such policies have unfortunately gone unheeded.

The Growing Dangers of the New Nuclear-Arms Race

In our view, these findings have significant implications for the assessment of nuclear weapons under the fundamental rules of international humanitarian law. The new information about the health and environmental effects and the absence of an adequate assistance capacity in most countries should trigger a reassessment of nuclear weapons by all States in both legal and policy terms. Already in , in response to the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, the ICRC concluded that "it is difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the requirements of international humanitarian law.

The evidence that has emerged since only strengthens these doubts. With every new piece of information, we move further away from any hypothetical scenario where the humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with international humanitarian law. This leads us, time and again, to the conclusion that the use of nuclear weapons must be prohibited and the weapons eliminated altogether. The ICRC believes that reducing the risk of nuclear-weapon use and ensuring their elimination through a legally binding international agreement is a humanitarian imperative.

Significant steps have already been taken. States with the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons have, since the end of the Cold War, significantly reduced the number of warheads that they possess.

How Would We Stop a Nuclear Missile?

Important steps have also been taken to increase security for nuclear materials.