Nuclear Weapons: Good or Bad?

chemical reaction Paper Nuclear Weapons Danger or Necessity? The use of atomic weapons has been under much debate from the moment the adult male witnessed their destructive power. As seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the aftermath left by these weapons is utter chaos, having a intense effect on both victims and witnesses lives. However, author Kenneth N. trip the light fantastic advocates the necessity of atomic weapons as a balance of power between countries.Another author, Robert S. McNamara stands in favor of eliminating atomic weapons for good, bringing reassurance of peace for a fearful world. As debates over atomic weapon use rage on, the threat is quiet down present and must be handled carefully to avoid a bit made apocalypse. McNamara and his strength on eliminating nuclear weapons is sensible, primarily due to the super acid man and woman agreeing with his logic.Nuclear weapons in todays world have no purpose but to scare opposing countries from stark(a) warfare, a purpose that hopefully stays that way. magic spell they were an everyday point during the cold war years, concerns with the growth of existing nuclear stockpiles are no prospicienter front page news. In an era where the security schedule is topped by fighting terrorism, we are more worried that terrorist organizations or rogue regimes might acquire nuclear weapons and inflict unspeakable equipment casualty to the targeted countries.McNamara argues that The countries of the world should try to eliminate their nuclear arsenal because of the utter loneliness these weapons can inflict on humanity (p 147). McNamara also states that By intensify its efforts in sustaining, modernizing, and improving its nuclear stockpile while refusing to ratify the all- virtually(prenominal) Test Ban Treaty, the United States sends a message that it is not unspoilt about nuclear non-proliferation (p 147).In order for complete nuclear disarmament, all cards must be playing the same game. Kenneth W altz is one of few advocators in favor of nuclear weapons, but he does have a solid argument. Leading scholars of international relations and policymakers role in the belief that the sheer destructiveness of nuclear weapons prevents them from being used by friends and foes alike. The deterrent effect of nuclear weapons is rooted in their possession quite than in their use.Waltz argues that Nuclear weapons make states cautious and less apparent to engage in reckless behavior (p 156). He also states that While the enormous destructiveness of nuclear weapons makes them excellent weapons for defensive purposes-the weapons have no nauseated rationale (p 155). Though Waltz does not advocate widespread nuclear armament, he does submit that nuclear weapons are great contributors to stability in the international system.After reading and analyzing the arguments of both authors, I take my stance with McNamara and his view toward eliminating nuclear weapons. Recently in an article on NY Ti mes, the US and Russia agreed on a nuclear disarmament treaty that shows hap in eliminating nuclear weapons by dismantling the two biggest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the modern world. This, I believe, is just the beginning of the end for nuclear weapons around the world which would keep humanity much safer and hopefully create long lasting peace.