Category: Nuclear Weapons

Thesis statement: In the reading titled “Today’s Nuclear Dilemma” by Eric Schlosser, the author is arguing that nuclear weapons pose a dangerous threat worldwide, now more than ever before and thus nuclear weapons need to be abolished.

I. Argument/reason: An important reason presented in the reading as to why nuclear weapons need to be abolished is due to expenses.

1. Evidence: Multiple different countries such as Russia, China, North Korea, and the United States are spending billions of dollars to advance and modernize their current nuclear weapons, submarines, and programs. This money can go to education, and health care, and be used to help the economy of these countries instead of being used to create weapons that are able to cause mass destruction.

• a. Example: A study has reported that the United States will be launching a program that will focus on advancing and modernizing its nuclear weapons, which will reportedly cost around one trillion dollars over the next couple of decades.

II. Another important reason presented in the reading as to why it is crucial for nuclear weapons to be abolished is because of the increasing threats that are being made.

1. Countries such as Russia and North Korea have made threats of using their nuclear weapons against other countries in the past by releasing statements, videos, and advertisements directed at certain countries with which they have disagreements.

• A. North Korea’s nuclear threats have increased over the past few years, as the North Korean government released a video back in 2013, showing their nuclear weapons striking the United States.

III. Furthermore, a significant reason why nuclear weapons must be abolished is due to malfunction dangers.

1. Nuclear weapons are machines which means that there is a high chance that these machines will have malfunctions once in a while, as all machines are known to have. However nuclear weapons are not normal machines, as they are made for the purpose of causing mass destruction which means that the malfunctions of such machines would be fatal.
2. Nuclear weapon machines have been designed by people and thus are prone to have some sort of deficiency, which means that incidents of accidents and blackmail are more likely to occur with such weapons involved.

• a) In 1961, hydrogen bombs were accidentally released due to a malfunction, which could have led to a large proportion of the United States being destroyed by a nuclear explosion.
• b) There have been malfunctions detected in the Soviet and American systems, which could have launched nuclear missiles had the malfunctions not been detected.
• c) Multiple malfunctions during the Cuban Missile Crisis could have proven to be fatal, as these malfunctions could have ended in a nuclear war which would have resulted in the mass destruction of many countries. Thus proving how dangerous malfunctions in nuclear weapon machines can be.
• d) The United States Air Force misplaced their missile with nuclear war weapons, and various Air Force launch officers in charge of handling dangerous missiles have been exposed to cheating on their tests and exams. Thus it is apparent that as multiple countries continue to advance and create more nuclear weapons, it will become more likely for malfunctions and accidents to occur.

IV. Moreover, an additional reason why nuclear weapons need to be abolished is due to hackers and cybercrime.

1. Even if a nuclear weapon machine is built carefully with the utmost advanced technology, the control systems of such machines are still easy targets for experienced cyber hackers.

• a) In 2010, 50 missiles went offline for around an hour, during which missile crews had no control or communication with their missiles. Launch crews having no control or communication with their own missiles is extremely dangerous because it means the power to launch the missiles were in the hands of someone else.
• b) Although the air force initially denied being hacked, one of the command generals stated that every major country with nuclear weapons had been hacked at one point.

V. Also, another reason why nuclear weapons should be abolished is because of possible terrorist activity.

1. Nuclear weapons are built from uranium and plutonium, and it has been discovered that there are around two million pounds of uranium and one million pounds of plutonium in the world.

• a) The amount of uranium and plutonium required to build a functioning nuclear weapon would be able to fit in a regular-sized gym bag, thus increasing the fear of a terrorist being able to build their own nuclear weapons.

VI. Counter argument: Nuclear deterrence has discouraged countries from engaging in a major conflict.

1. For example: deterrence is a form of psychological defense because countries will not want to engage in conflict due to fear of being attacked by nuclear weapons.
2. Response: Nuclear deterrence is nothing more than a physiological threat, there is no guarantee that it will always be successful in preventing physical harm to civilians.

VII. Conclusion: It may be difficult for nuclear weapons to be abolished because it has been decades since a nuclear weapon caused major damage, however, the danger of nuclear weapons is at an all-time high with advanced technology being used to modernize nuclear weapons. Thus it is important to save the world from nuclear extinction while there still is time.

A family relaxes on a peaceful August day, children are busy playing on the streets and despite it being wartime, life is good. No sound can be heard but laughter and the whistle of the wind blowing through the trees. Suddenly the whistle is replaced with a whine, as the air raid sirens blare out, silencing the children. The parents quickly rush outside, escorting their crying children inside, the city has been bombed before, how different will this be? Peering through the windows, a nightmarish sight is seen. A fireball claws at the sky, reaching miles upwards. Nobody knows what’s going on, what’s going to happen, what the beast will do. It keeps getting bigger and bigger, and they see houses getting flattened, hundreds every second. All they can do is hold each other as they are blasted into infinitesimal pieces by the pressure wave. With that over 145 thousand people are dead, and the first of two nuclear weapons to be dropped on civilians has been used. We now know that the explosion also caused decades of suffering from radiation, meaning the impact of launching one is exponentially increased. Yet still, there are people advocating for the maintenance of nukes. The United Kingdom currently has 120 usable nuclear missiles which are simply hemorrhaging the government’s budget and causing needless risk to the health of the British public. This is why I am arguing for the production and maintenance of nuclear weapons to be banned in the United Kingdom.

Firstly, the impact of modern-day nuclear weapons is devastating, and a nuclear war would be potentially world-ending, so we can’t risk actually using any nukes. The submarine-based nuclear missile system used by the U.K. is called Trident, and each missile has the explosive power of 100 kilotons of TNT. For context, if one of these were shot at Edinburgh, everything bar the farthest outskirts would be leveled by the shock wave, and the last 1% would certainly die from injuries in the following days and weeks. Using a nuclear weapon on a state that itself owns nukes would certainly cause retaliation, and since nowadays 9 countries have nuclear weapons, this situation is not too far-fetched. A nuclear war would also cause a nuclear winter, where for years afterward the entire world would be cooled from a layer of debris blocking the sun’s rays, causing crops to fail and mass hunger. The suffering caused by a nuclear war means we could never risk using one, and so therefore the small advantages of having them are far outweighed by the other disadvantages that come from them.

One of those disadvantages is the way the weapons are transported, which causes unnecessary risk to the public. In the U.K. we use a convoy of 20 vehicles, and these drive on public roads all the way from southern England to central Scotland, two to six times a year. The vehicles have to travel hundreds of miles, giving them ample time for things to go wrong. Accidents could easily happen, as they travel in any conditions, so on wet or icy roads the heavy trucks could fall over. The warhead could potentially explode, with obvious consequences. However, a far more dangerous possibility is if the truck was attacked. Driving on public roads, the convoy could do nothing to protect it from an organized threat, and the damage a terrorist group could do with a nuke is immeasurable, any demand they have would have to be followed, or if they decided to use it, they could kill millions. Overall transporting nuclear weapons is very dangerous, but if we banned them this problem would be entirely resolved.

Another disadvantage of having nuclear weapons is the enormous cost of maintaining and replacing them. Our current nuclear weapon program (trident) costs anywhere between 2.3 and 4.6 billion pounds every year simply to maintain the weapons, depending on how many weapons need services and the type of maintenance needed. The money goes towards inspecting the weapons, and repairing any problems. The average cost of building a new secondary school in the UK is £30 million, so with the average yearly spending on nukes, we could build 115 new schools every year. Not only do we have to maintain them, but they also need to be replaced, and in 2028 trident will be renewed, costing an expected £31 billion simply to acquire the weapons. Incorporating the fact that we cannot morally use them due to the suffering they cause, it’s as if the money is just being flushed away, it’s only purpose is to convince other countries that we are in the big leagues too.

A further reason we should ban nuclear weapons in the U.K. is that even if we decided to disregard the moral problems with firing nuclear weapons, international laws prevent us from using them. The United Nations state that firing a nuke breaks the law stating “Never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets”. However, it’s not just one international law. To name just a few of them it breaks the Geneva Convention, the international court of justice law, and The Hague Convention. This means either we follow these laws, which would render our weapons entirely useless, or break these laws and come under the scrutiny of the most influential powers in the world. Going with the former means we can never fire them, and so the money is being wasted even more so than not using them for moral reasons. Going with the latter means we will be struck with sanctions that will severely cripple our economy and make the lives of the British population significantly harder, all for the massacre of millions of civilians in another country. So therefore we are in a complete lose-lose situation while maintaining nukes. However, once again getting rid of them solves this problem entirely, as we no longer need to hemorrhage money for no gain, proving that banning nukes in the U.K. is beneficial.

While banning nukes has many advantages, some people say that we need them to act as a deterrent against war. The founder of deterrence theory said, “The capacity to harm another state is now used as a motivating factor for other states to avoid it”. Relating to nukes, this means that in theory owning nukes will stop countries waging war on us, as we are able to fire nuclear weapons at them. While it is true that most states are affected by this rationale, the type of states that would attack us in the first place is not rational, and so would not be deterred in any way. Furthermore, for deterrence to work, we must be willing to use the weapons, and as I’ve already discussed there are so many complications with using them it is not even an option. Therefore they become redundant. On top of that, we do not even need to own them ourselves to have a deterrent, we are allies with countries (mainly the United States) that have access to a much larger stockpile of nuclear weapons than us, and so if a state is going to be deterred by our nukes in the first place, even if we get rid of them all, they will still be deterred by our allies applying that threat. So the deterrent point is almost entirely negated, and the disadvantages I have stated far outweigh the slim advantages.

It is obvious that we should ban nuclear weapons. A world without them is a significantly happier and safer one. No matter the outcries of those who want to dance with death, the only way we can know what a better tomorrow will look like is to take the first step to achieve it. Before disaster strikes.

Nuclear weapons, without a doubt are the deadliest form of weapons that man created. They are capable of killing millions of people and demolishing entire cities. They are brutal weapons that carry catastrophic effects when used. Despite this, there are thousands of nuclear weapons in possession in several nations around the world. Even if these weapons of mass destruction were never actually used for the purpose of causing harm, their existence still carries remarkable consequences. I firmly believe that the only way to bring an end to the harmful effects that such weapons carry is a ban on both their use and possession. One of the main weapons that has caused major issues today is the AR-15. This weapon has been used in some of the deadliest mass shootings.

Over the years mass shootings has become a major problem in the U.S. There has been a total of 116 shootings, with the first being in 1982. Since then they have increased tremendously and continue to be a problem today as we speak. The number of mass shootings across the U.S. thus far in 2019 has outpaced the number of days this year. One weapon that is used in these mass shootings is the AR-15. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle that is a version of the U.S. military M16 rifle. Therefore, people should not be allowed to just walk around and carry this weapon. It is an extremely dangerous weapon and can put people lives in danger, like it has over the years. This weapon has caused people to lose family members and close friends. We can’t agree on gun control, but maybe we can at least agree to get rid of one kind of gun from public hands as soon as possible. For these reasons I believe that this weapon should be banned.

When it comes to how American children are exposed to gun violence, gunfire at schools is the frontrunner. Every year nearly 2,900 children and teens are shot and killed and nearly 15,600 more are shot and injured. An estimated 3 million American children are exposed to shootings per year. Gunfire on school campuses takes many forms and mirrors the problem of gun violence in America. The authors Ash, Gwynne Ellen, and Jane M. Saunders article “Rampage School Shootings in Young Adult Fiction and Young Adult Lives” analyzes a large amount of school shootings. Ash, Gwynne Ellen, and Jane M. Saunders state “Shooters are bullied or isolated and driven into their acts” . This statement is realistic because majority of school shooters that were bullied get their revenge by shooting schools up. Special needs can also be a main cause of shooters actions. Mass shootings are happening at elementary schools, middle schools, high schools and colleges. This is a huge problem and it needs to come to an end. The only way this can be prevented is by banning the weapons that are being used in these incidents.

One of the most popular arguments for the possession of nuclear weapons is that they are very useful as deterrents and help to maintain peace between nations. For the idea of nuclear deterrents to be effective, we must assume that all nation leaders think the best interest of the people of their country. However, it is well known that some nations do not play by this ruleset. These include terrorist organizations. This is a gamble on millions of human lives that is not worth taking. Because most nuclear threats come from dictatorships and terrorist organizations instead of genuine governments, it would be morally wrong to cold-bloodedly kill tens of thousands of civilians because of the actions of a select few.

The history of technological advancements has been, among other things, fuelled by armed conflicts and warfare between and within nations. The equipment and tools used in the course of war have progressed from the crude types, such as sharpened sticks, to predator missiles and automatic weaponry. Each emerging piece of military technology has had the impact on changing the way in which humans engage in warfare and the tactics adopted during the conflicts (Herbst 56). In order to fully understand the changes in approaches to war over time, it is critical to follow the enhancements in military weaponry and equipment. The 20th century (1900-2000) is regarded as the most active and innovative century in terms of evolution of weaponry and subsequent approaches to warfare. In essence, it is the century that featured such infamous armed conflicts as World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War, among other, smaller conflicts between belligerent parties. Each war scenario presented a case of advanced weaponry, which, in turn, was matched with changes in approaches to the war (Herbst 56). It is apparent that each new century brings its own technological advancements and breakthrough inventions for the development of the war process and military progress. Thus, to a great extent, the evolution of weaponry from the years 1900 to 2000 changed war in exceptional ways. This essay will highlight the most notable moments that articulate the major weaponry changes, elaborating on some of the particular weapons used during armed conflicts of the 20th century.

Prior to the beginning of the 20th century, there were other wars that set the pace for the rapid evolution of weaponry that was witnessed during this remarkable century. The American Revolutionary War, for instance, featured privateering, with the American fleets being armed with rifles, muskets, bayonets, and other common artillery weapons of the day. During the Civil War, the weapons featured included small arms, such as rifles, and field artillery; changes in the naval techniques (e.g., Ironclads and submarines) were introduced in the war (Warren 769). It is critical to explore this background because the development of weaponry from 1900 henceforth was a mere continuation of the evolution of weaponry and warfare in the world. In the past, the introduction of new weapons meant that the approaches to the battleground had to be revised. For instance, the Revolutionary War, which manifested the use of crude weapons, such as rifles and muskets, involved close contact during battles, but the Civil War meant that more distance had to be kept, and more logical approaches had to be employed in the battlefield. These developments set the precedence for the rapid developments of weaponry during the 20th century (Warren 770).

One of the key moments in the history of the development of weaponry during the 20th century was the start of World War I. In essence, before this war, the world was reasonably calm in terms of conflict; still, the background developments in weaponry were being conducted, and this was proven during the eruption of WWI (Wheelis 98). This war highlighted considerable technological changes in weaponry. Advances included the introduction of tanks, gas, aeroplanes, and a myriad of other latest equipment. Some of the weaponry was cited as the reason for some of the most brutal warfare and the most widespread world destruction ever witnessed since warfare was invented. The combat and battlefield styles were mainly centred on the trench warfare approach. The tactics applied earlier, where soldiers would stand in lines across fields facing the enemy, were now in the past because the weapons were too advanced for this kind of tactics (Wheelis 123). During WWI, the Western Front, which covered areas of Northern France and Belgium, witnessed the most abrasive trench warfare, whereby combat between the German forces and Allied forces was centred. The inclusion of trench warfare was a result of the new technologies in the weaponry front, as the trenches were designed to protect fighters from aircrafts, machine gun fire, and attacks with the use of chemical weapons. The trenches were constructed in response to the fatalities witnessed during the Civil War due to poor tactics. The advancements were so fatal that during the first day of the Battle of Somme, there were almost 70,000 British casualties. In total, this battle claimed the lives of approximately 9 million soldiers, while, for instance, the Civil War witnessed 620,000 soldiers die. The adjustments during WWI were in response to these fatalities as a result of technological advancements not being met with changes in tactics (Wheelis 145).

The machine gun was first used during the Civil War, but it was heavy and crude, which meant that its effectiveness on the war front was limited (Coupland and Meddings 407). However, Hiram Maxim, who was the pioneer of the Gatling gun made adjustments, which allowed the gun to fire between 500 and 700 rounds of bullets at the warfront. Flame throwers, later widely used by Germans, as well as the Allied Forces, were designed by Richard Fielder. However, this weapon, which had been revealed to the interested parties in 1901, was not featured in wars until WWI broke out. The trench warfare meant that the flame thrower was dangerous because soldiers could acquire structural damage without the trenches being destroyed. The flame thrower was first used in the battle at Verdun by the German forces, which prompted the Allies to evacuate their soldiers and erect deeper and more protective trenches (Coupland and Meddings 408).

In the second year of WWI, 1915, the Germans launched around 150 tons of chlorine gas against French soldiers. This is considered one of the most brutal attacks of the war, and it pushed other nations involved in the war to launch their own gas attacks. This motivated the distance warfare where troops would ensure that they understood the location of the enemy troops and try to keep distance to avoid proximity to such attacks. Aircrafts were widely used in WWII, but in the course of WWI fighters had begun learning how to mount bombs and guns on aeroplanes. During the war, countries involved continued to improve the design of tanks. During the war, a tank as large as 14 tons could manoeuvre through the battlefield at a speed of 2 miles per hour but could not cross the trenches. As a response, enemy soldiers sought to dig even deeper trenches to combat the effects of the tanks (Coupland and Meddings 409).

With the conclusion of WWI, it was time for further preparations, as countries invested even more into advancement of weaponry in preparation of a similar scenario. WWI was a wakeup time for the world because it was the largest war in history at the time, and it introduced technological advances that meant the world could be destroyed (Liivoja 1159). Even though a vast array of modern weapons were featured in WWI, World War II introduced even more impactful changes. Instead of waging war within trenches, troops started a new tactic where they would take cover in foxholes and shell craters, as opposed to hunkering down in set soldier lines. Additionally, advancement in warfare witnessed the advancement of more ways for troops to access the battlefield, with railways, motorised vehicles, and airplanes being an addition to the speed of weaponry in the war, resulting in a progressive evolution of warfare approaches, strategies, and tactics (Liivoja 1160). The top military developments and the evolution of war weapons, which was witnessed during WWII, formed the basis for understanding the developments showcased during the war.

One of the most notable developments during WWII was the M1 Garand Rifle. The US military set up a large number of troops equipped with this gun, utilising it as their standard-issue weapon for majority of their infantry units. This was a new form of weapon because it allowed auto-loading, which gave troops the merit and additional advantages at most military engagements. Ultimately, the gun witnessed such success in the battlefield that the US experienced a spike in demand from the Allied Forces. Consequently, approximately 5 million of the riffles had been produced ad used in war before it came to an end (Liivoja 1168).

One of the most documented advancements in weaponry during WWII was the use of military airplanes because it completely changed war tactics in the battlefield. At the time when the war began, airplanes had included small adjustments since the WWI (O’Connell 45). Since military bombers had the capacity to destroy towns, strategically hit selected locations, and cause unrest, superiority in the air became a major factor in battleground plans for both conflicting sides. There were three leading military airplanes, which had the most impact on the war. The first was B-17. This airplane, dubbed the Flying Fortress, was a large plane made for the US Air Force and fitted with 9 machine guns; it had a capacity to hold bombs of up to 5,000 pounds to be dropped on enemies. It could fly at a high speed of 296 kilometres per hour and proved useful against the Nazi forces (O’Connell 66). The Mitsubishi A6M Zero was a Japanese aeroplane and one of the most deadly military advancements of the war. It is credited with the Pearl Harbor attack and was used in long-range situations because it was built as a versatile weapon. It was equipped with cannons, machine guns, and two bombs of more than 130 pounds. It was also used largely for suicide missions by Kamikaze pilots. The third aeroplane, the Supermarine Spitfire, was the jet fighter responsible for singlehandedly saving Britain from the dangerous and highly advanced Luftwaffe. These planes had diverse weaponry combinations, containing cannons and machine guns of different sizes and numbers. Planes and their incorporation into warfare revolutionised warfare tactics making the approaches from airspace more common than the battleground approaches (O’Connell 95).

The atomic bomb, one of the most deadly weapons to ever be featured in war, was introduced during WWII. In essence, nuclear technology can be regarded as likely the most dangerous military technology introduced during this war. This is one of the most widely documented cases of the impact that technology had on war. The atomic bomb had the capacity to turn an entire city to ashes (O’Connell 95). This weapon gave the countries with nuclear weapons a substantial competitive advantage and leverage in winning or preventing a military conflict. The US is famously credited with developing the atomic bomb and consequently dropping it onto Hiroshima, leading to fatalities of more than 80,000 people, and leaving the city in ruins. After the Japanese insisted on pursing the war, the US forces dropped a second bomb on the city of Nagasaki, causing 70,000 fatalities as an immediate impact (O’Connell 103). These fatality numbers were followed up by more deaths in subsequent days, and the attacks were responsible bringing the war to an end. As such, nuclear technology can be regarded as the most destructive technology first utilised in the Second World War, and the impact it had on the battlefield changed the realm of warfare completely. Besides the stated advancements, World War II also witnessed the advancement in tank weaponry, whereby powerful tanks hit the battlefields, causing havoc and damage. During this war, the tanks were much improved. Additionally, there naval carriers and warships, which played a crucial roles in waging war in the pacific and successfully allowing troops to access Europe’s mainland (Frischknecht 48).

Following the end of the WWII, any other war that came after was not as extensively studies as this one because none of them could naturally measure up to the level of impact that WWII had. Nonetheless, one of the wars that manifested further advancements in weaponry and war tactics is the Korean War. The start of the war was June 25, 1950 after South Korea was invaded by North Korea. The war took more than three years before it could be concluded, with North Korea getting support from China and the Soviet Union, while South Korea garnered support from the UN, mostly the US (Frischknecht 49). The most commonly used weapon during the war was the jet aircraft. The conflict involved an infamous jet-to-jet combat at the battlefield. At the time, to offer support to South Korea, the US met the Soviet jets at the battlefield. As a result of the clear superiority posed by jet engines, the Korean War was notably the very last time that aircrafts using piston engines would be used at the battlefield against aircrafts using jet engines. Some of the most notable jet-fighters from the war were the F-86 Sabre, which was used in fast missions, and the MiG-15 from the Soviet Union. The USAF used bombers, such as Douglas B-26, as well as the super fortress titled Boeing B-29, which were mostly used for attacking such strategic locations as the railroads and airfields (Frischknecht 51).

During the Korean War, the North Korean army was armed with tanks from the Soviets; South Korea, backed by the US, was investing in rocket launchers, which could offer sustainable resistance. The Bazooka, measuring 2.37 inches, that was used in WWII could not successfully destroy 5-inches of armour. Thus, to develop equipment that was appropriate in the battle to fight highly effective, tough, and strategic Soviet forces using the T34 jet tank, the US launched the 3.5 inch M20, which used HEAT rockets to counter the impact of the tank. The Korean War was a somewhat extension of WWII, and it witnessed an immense advance in the use of large amounts of body armour (Guillemin 46). Even though this technology was still to be fully developed, the body armour used by the US, for instance the M-1951, was able to protect the battlefield troops from airborne projectiles. By insulating their vests with aluminium and plastic plates, the technology could not stop the bullets from the close range, but it was still an effective approach to shield them against shrapnel. It was during the Korean War that such battlefield tactics as ground-directed bombing was effectively implemented. This is generally a practice of aviation or ground support equipment personnel whose main purpose is directing airstrikes made from the ground. One of the examples of its application was the use of radar-monitored bombing technologies, such as the MPQ-14, which was used by Marine air support technical teams to assist in directing war aircraft. The Vietnam War witnessed a similar evolution of weaponry, with such firearms as M16, AK47, and M60 making a debut. Additionally, helicopters to the tune of 8,000 of them and Cluster bombs, Napalm, and booby traps were all launched during the Vietnam War. Booby traps were especially effective, as they led to the death of 45,000 US soldiers (Guillemin 48).

Following the end of the World War II, the world was in a state of shock regarding the kind of damage that a war would cause with the current technological advancements. The world entered a phase of the Cold War, which was a major non-combatant psychological warfare between superpowers. Every powerful nation was investing heavily in military and atomic weaponry in preparation for another possible war outbreak. In essence, the occurrences of the previous war altered the war tactics. The GPS, internet, and reliable internet chips and transmitters were some of the alarming weaponry developments attached to the Cold War era (Karaganov 89). The technology during the Cold War made it possible for countries to engage in defence development across the internet landscape. The arms and space race was able to spawn a myriad of technologies that created a vast array of business opportunities for the countries that were heavily invested in the conflict. The Cold War manifested the development of primitive computers that could change the process of the war. At the end, the superpowers came to an agreement that another war would be the last one for humankind, and the world would, most likely, not recover from another episode. Some of the most lethal weaponry advancements made during this period include the USS George Washington, which involved the development of nuclear weapons at an alarming phase, the AK-47, which was one of the most impactful weapons ever made, the F-4 Phantom, and the FN-FAL Battle Rifle (Karaganov 93).

To a large extent, the evolution of weaponry from 1900 to 2000 changed the ways of engaging in war apparently and alarmingly at the same time. The 20th century is by far the most evolutionary century in terms of weaponry and war approaches. These developments, picked up from the previous century, especially the Civil War, were extended through the two World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War. Smaller conflicts of the era utilised the advancements made during these wars. Since the Vietnam War and the Cold War, the evolution of war weapons has made it possible for humans to fight remotely. Even though forces on the ground still play a crucial role during the process of a war, the majority of the pieces of military technology provide an enhanced opportunity for war to be waged from a considerable physical distance because the causalities of a close-range war are often unfathomable. Up until the end of the century, such technological innovations as drones, tomahawk missiles, and space weapons had been discovered, and it is fortunate that the world has not been able to witness a full-fledged war during this period because the implications would be fatal for the entire humankind. Evolution, innovation, and the desire to rule the world are what has driven the development of weaponry throughout the human history, with even more inventions being made currently for the proliferation of control and defence.

On August 6th and August 9th, 1945, the United States detonated 2 Nuclear weapons on Japanese cities – Hiroshima and Nagasaki and killed between 129,000 and 226,000 People, most of whom were innocent civilians.

The 2 Bombs were made by a group of scientists that were researching nuclear weapons when undergoing the Manhattan Project In World War II. Nuclear Physicist Robert Oppenheimer was the man that designed the bombs which were called “Fat Man” and “Little Boy”

Little Boy which was a uranium type bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, and Fat Man which was a Plutonium type bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Roughly half of the deaths in each city occurred on the first day of impact, but also a large number of people continued to die for months due to Burns, Radiation Sickness, and other injuries.

And all that was 1945, Since then there have been over 125,000 nuclear weapons built that are much, much more powerful than Little Boy and Fat Man combined. In 1961 the soviet Union detonated a hydrogen bomb that carried more than 50 Million Tons of TNT. When the mushroom cloud was forming it exited our atmosphere and was over 60 kilometres high. To put that in perspective that’s over 7 Mount Everest’s stacked together.

In 2019 there are estimated to be at least 15,000 Nuclear weapons all around the globe on standby, waiting to be launched at any moment. If 2 countries got into some sort of conflict that lead to nuclear warfare and one country launched a bomb, then it’s most likely the other country in conflict won’t hold back and will launch one in return. And this constant battle of nuclear bombs would result in both countries releasing all the nukes they have. Which overall would affect every last person on the planet.

And if anyone was lucky enough to survive the initial impact then the Fallout, being the radiation that is spread in the air would finish anybody off.

And if that wasn’t enough, the gas and smoke in the air would block off all sun rays from touching the earth resulting in crops not being able to grow which means we wouldn’t have a food source to survive. And with all of this, there is overall a 1% chance of human extinction, a 1 in 100 chance.

And that may not sound like a lot but the chance of you dying in an aeroplane accident is 1 in 11 Million, and the chance of dying by lightning is 1 in 84,000. So there is a better chance of every human on the planet dying by nuclear weapons than there is more than anything besides cancer and heart disease. And if we leave these problems at hand then this might as well be the end of civilization as we know it.

Abstract

What is a broken arrow, and how does it affect a nation’s security? These are among the questions that will be investigated further in this essay. Is terrorism a potential risk factor for both an increase in broken arrow disasters, alongside major casualties, and threats if such weapons were to be in the hands of such irrational individuals. We will identify numerous case studies that could potentially have resulted in negative outcome, as well as what caused these particular problems to occur. These include where the safeguarding procedures caused critical errors, and how they were unable to evade its results. lastly a topic of discussion would be the thoughts of other on the subject of nuclear weapons?

This subject piqued my interest during my first years of secondary school, I had taken history but never successfully completed it to GCSE remembering clearly, I had briefly brushed upon this topic of studying the case study of Hiroshima, and when in my final year of GCSE, my physics teacher had once again discussed the topic of radiation and mass industrialised nuclear weapons. So, when given the opportunity to discuss the topic further, I leaped at the chance.

The aim of this study was to look at alternative ways that nuclear weapons provided protection while also posing risks. The objective of this report was to introduce vital information about nuclear weapons’ past, to help the population understand the various aspects that these weapons offer. While I assume an opinion on this vast topic, the public may make their own assumptions and conclusions based on evidence provided. The essay’s conclusion was that, despite popular belief that these weapons have been used several times before, only two have been used in history, as effort to inflict damage on a third party as a means of achieving war objectives. All other uses of these weapons were either an accidental triggering of these weapons resulting in detonation, or test runs to ensure that the machines were functioning efficiently. As a result, the nature of these weapons is complicated, as one may argue, why are they being created if they aren’t in use, and are they actually mitigating risks or producing more?

Introduction

On multiple occasions, nuclear weapons have demonstrated to be deadly, possessing unprecedented destructive ability. There have been occurrences when mistakes were made, necessitating the creation of several laws, one of which is the humanitarian law (which protects civilians and combatants during and after armed conflict). According to IHL, weapons that cause unnecessary damage to people should not be used. This is especially true with nuclear weapons, which do not threaten a specific race but rather harms those surrounding them (cause massive, indiscriminate damage). (International Law and Nuclear Weapons Learn About Nuclear Weapons, 2020). These governmental laws imply that nuclear weapons should not be handled as they harm civilian lives therefore during a war they are seen as unacceptable as they causes catastrophic, fatal results with no morally ethical sympathy for its damages.

North Korea and its research reactor, which exploded five nuclear devices due to its failure to fulfil NPT obligations, is one of the case studies that will be further discussed in this study. Iraq tried to enrich indigenous uranium to military-grade content in 1991, in breach of the NPT and safeguards obligations; this means that they have nuclear weapons capability, therefore enhancing the theory of if Iraq can create such weapons so can extremists.

Both case studies indicate that certain safeguarding initiatives aren’t worth having as nuclear weapons can still be activated even when agreements have been made and therefore pose as potential danger, regardless of the deterrents. This is generally due to political leaders seeking control and refusing to adhere to the law when in conflict with other countries.

Extra

However, with all this power comes responsibility: are we to rely on a button to ensure our safety and lives when many of us don’t even trust ourselves to do so? The mass manufacturing industry may have been brought to a halt, but many people continue to operate in the shadows. Deterrence is the action of discouraging an action or event through instilling doubt or fear of the consequences. (deterrence noun – Definition, pictures, pronunciation and usage notes | Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com, 2021) This theory is used in association with nuclear weapons to deter attacks by promising retaliation. Deterrence has a significant flaw in that it cannot avoid attacks caused by mistake or miscalculation, as well as attacks perpetrated by terrorists or offenders who are unfazed by death. We can see this as Code, Broken arrow is a form of communication used to report the indication an accidental nuclear weapon launch, theft, or detonation. It is said to have been used 32 times since 1950. This suggests that global risks may arise as a result of human error. Consequently, it influences everyone’s livelihood on the planet.

According to current reports, Russia has the most nuclear warheads in the world, with 6500 warheads and 1600 of those deployed. With 6,185 nuclear warheads and 1,750 of them deployed, the United States is second on the list. France follows with 300 nuclear warheads, 280 of which have been deployed, and the United Kingdom follows with 200 nuclear warheads, 120 of which have been deployed.

All these facts and figures point to one thing: why are there so many bombs? Since the end of World War II, no other bombs have been launched, which makes us question why keep producing. Only two nuclear weapons, a little boy and a fat man, have ever been launched. Even though countries spend a fortune on these industrialised weapons, only a small number of nuclear weapons are on standby. Because very few of the weapons are currently in operation, and countries have signed agreements, it’s likely that others aren’t able to invoke the right to use them, meaning there’s little need to keep manufacturing them. Therefore, nations can better spend money toward better facilities such as health provisions and education. The term ‘deploy’ implies that nuclear weapons are ready to use and strike a specific target. We’ve seen statistics that indicate a large number of bombs have been detonated; the figures show that 2,056 nuclear tests have taken place across hundreds of test sites, but only two were conducted on civilians, so why the need for such a large number of tests… Testing should be done to better understand how weapons would respond in various situations, as well as to test the structure and equipment, and provide an information bases if they were to be used in a real war scenario. Many people, however, believe these weapons are political moves of demonstrating power.

The weapons we have today had a beginning, somewhere where they were made, discovered, and understood, and from 1789 to 1939, major advances in fission energy occurred, as did the philosophy surrounding these weapons. On July 1941, 2 reports were written discussing the use of the uranium as a source for creating bombs and a Source of Power’. The idea of using uranium to release vast quantities of radioactive substances (making explosion site toxic to humans for long periods) arose from the belief that the Germans were developing a weapon to aid in WWII.

Case study

The father, Robert Oppenheimer, was the inventor of nuclear weapons, and on July 16, 1945, in Alamogordo, New Mexico, he successfully detonated the first atomic bomb, known as the Trinity Test. President Truman, had approved the use of atomic bombs to stop the Second World War and achieve a surrender from Japan. The first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, followed by the second bomb on Nagasaki just three days later. Following this, the Japanese government surrendered the day after. Subsequently, a programme known as The Manhattan Project was created, the US government programme developedbuilt the first atomic bombs.Now, I am Death, the destroyer of worlds, Oppenheimer recites from the Hinduism’s Bhagavad Gita. Which indicates that after the bombing on Hiroshima, he felt responsible regretful for the casualties caused by his invention. Therefore, the security nuclear weapons provide does not justify the unethical and immoral events that happened.

Why do states, as individual actors in the international context, want nuclear weapons? This essay is to apply a neo-realism analysis to the sino-soviet case towards the question. Realists reckon power as a means to the end of security. Therefore an argument is drawn here that states pursue nuclear weapons to guarantee state security.

Neorealists subscribe to a three ss theory: statism, self-help and survival, among which survival is viewed as the ultimate goal. Therefore, this essay follows the structure of three ss.

Statism

Max weber once define the state as the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory , on which neorealists concur. Within the territory, the state has the supreme authority to fulfill state’s security, even at the cost of individual liberty. Power, is therefore unarguable the first thing to organize according to neorealists.

Realists once gave two points on power. First, power is a relational concept that one excises power in relation to another; second, power is a relative concept and one needs to measure power capabilities of both himself and other states. From this perspective, a state needs both domestic and international power to secure itself. Therefore, nuclear weapons can be the means for a state to concentrate power.

Self-help

The idea of self-help indicates that one states’ quest for security is often another’s insecurity, therefore states can only fulfill security through self-help rather than depending on other states.

Nuclear weapons, as a powerful military means to shock and deter prospective enemies, can be the method of self-help for a state to implement security. The delicate tool for massive war, to some extent becomes the very tool for state security and peace.

In October 1954, during his visit in china, krushchev was surprised by president mao’s interest in nuclear weapon and anticipation soviet union would assist. After the sino-soviet agreement in 1955, soviet union began to dispatch nuclear specialists and infrastructures as well as equipment, but eventually rescinded the agreement and withdrew all specialists along with technology, equipment and blueprint. By June 1959 the Soviet Union had cut off all supplies to China’s nuclear programs.

There are a few points worth noting. First, when krushchev initially knew the interest of Chinese government in nuclear energy and weapons, he was hesitant and tried to convince that developing own nuclear weapon is costly and unnecessary as soviet union had already nuclear protection for china, whereas china government shall focus on economic construction. Fourth, the support and aid from soviet union was to some extents limited; restrictions were imposed on soviet specialists with regard to what knowledge could be lectured whereas what was confidential and not allowed to be revealed, or shall be instructed from Moscow through a communication line. What is more, Soviet intended to build substantial distance from china in first-line of the latest products, whereas only giving third-line or outdated equipment . Evidence was that the technology of the tested bomb in 1949 was from outdated American model rather than the more advanced 1951 one. Sixth, the cease of support was due to a series of incidents which arouse disagreement, according to some analysis.

If applying a neorealist analysis, these points may be better explained. As neorealists contend that state security can only be realized through self-help, and that one state’s quest for security is insecurity for another, china’s willingness to develop nuclear power was a means to find state security, but to some extents would place pressure on the regional community, threatening the security of soviet union, thereby explaining the shock and hesitation of krushchev. On another aspect, soviet union only concur on providing outdated and obsolete model, whereas declining to offer more advanced technology, restricting the lecturing of nuclear knowledge, not revealing the core technology which made the later Chinese own research have to start at the very beginning, was also to avert china from developing too powerful military power which might threat the hegemon of soviet union. Cases that manifest such threat are incidents that were reckoned as direct cause of unravelling of sino-soviet relation and disagreement, which leaded to the termination of aid from soviet union. one very important case was the shelling in Jinmen, which ussr was not consulted as ally, despite that krushchev had consecutively told mao although Taiwan issue is china’s internal affair, it has immense influence on the whole region and the socialism bloc . This incident showed the ambition of china in the control over regional affairs, whereas ignoring ussr was more a signal of insecurity to krushchev. therefore, the suspension of aid, to some extents can be interpreted as ussr’s effort to reinforce state security through self-help.

On the other hand, china eventually resort to self-efforts in developing own nuclear power was also the reflect of achieving state security through self-help, whether the proposed slogan to make a break-through in three years, to master the technical know-how in five years, and to have atomic bombs in stock in eight years, or the report submitted by Nie Rongzhen, titled ‘Relying on Our Own Efforts to Solve the Issue of Materials for New Technology.

Survival

Nuclear deterrence theory, that once a state has acquired a secure second strike capability, that is the ability to retaliate after a pre-emptive first strike, states are relatively secure as the consequences for an attacker are so severe that no rational state leader would dare contemplate the devastating costs of a nuclear retaliation.

Both offensive and defensive neo-realists concur on the necessity of nuclear proliferation, as Kenneth waltz stated, world has never experienced longer peace after second world war ever since treaty of Westphalia, and this shall be explained by the presence of nuclear weapons. Offensive realists like john mearsheimer also recognize the importance of nuclear armament, whereas he agrees that the proliferation shall only happen among enlightened states. From these perspective, the armament of nuclear weapons can deter the prospective invasion, which explains the reason mao cherished high importance in nuclear weapons and resorted to soviet union for help. Armament of nuclear means the capability of nuclear retaliation, thereby deterring any latent invasions. From the standpoint of soviet union, preventing china from developing own nuclear power can strengthen china’s interdependence on soviet union, whereas it can use nuclear protection as negotiation chip in case conflicts happen in the future.

Unlike classical realists, who reckon human nature as the reason for interstates competitions, neorealists ascribe the conflicts to the state of anarchy, and contend that the ultimate goal of a state is to protect security and survive in the international environment. Under this context, in the very same case of soviet union’s changing policies towards aid in china developing nuclear weapons, some other details shall be covered. First, in the soviet government statement made in 1955, its aim for providing technological and equipment support, is to promote the peaceful use of nuclear power and atomic energy . Second, krushchev’s decision to support china for nuclear research, on one hand was to collaborate china to consolidate his authority in socialism bloc, on the other hand he needed support from china to overpower all other political enemies after the death of stalin. By assisting china to develop nuclear power, soviet union could be anticipating a stronger socialism bloc to maintain regional peace, whereas securing its leadership in socialism community. From this perspective, soviet union wanted nuclear weapons, though not for itself and not so eagerly, for a balance of power in the international society and its better survival in the battle in the cold war.

Even for a regional hegemon nuclear weapons are necessary for survival and state security, not to mention the salience of it for a relatively smaller state. To survive under the bipolar or even multipolar combat, nuclear weapons can be the tool to lessen the possibility a relatively smaller state falling into any side of the combat, or being forced to quit neutrality and eventually being sacrificed for the interests of a superpower.

Critiques

Realism is also confronting some critiques. Some made inquiry that is power really a means to an end? Or is it an end to itself? Where neorealism is divided into streams of offensive and defensive, the former deem power itself as an end whereas the latter argue power is only a means to achieve security. Offensive realism companies defensive realism on how much power states want. Under this context of necessity of developing nuclear weapons, the critiques can be the risk of proliferation and abuse of armament.

Though nuclear can be used to deter enemies, it seems not every state has the ration, As Sagan points out ‘The assumption that states behave in a basically rational manner is of course an assumption, not an empirically tested fact’.

In a study of high-tech terrorism, eliot marshal made a quote from the president of nuclear control institute, paul Leventhal, that as state-sponsored terrorism grows, it is more plausible a terrorist obtains nuclear weapons. Therefore the abuse and proliferation of nuclear weapons becomes a non-neglectable question.

Introduction

Ancient nuclear weapons, a subject that has intrigued many, often sparks curiosity and speculation about the existence of advanced technologies in the past. This essay aims to explore the topic of ancient nuclear weapons from an informative perspective, separating historical facts from unfounded theories. While ancient civilizations achieved remarkable feats, the notion of nuclear weapons in antiquity requires critical examination and a balanced assessment of the available evidence.

Ancient Technologies and Achievements

Ancient civilizations such as the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, and Mayans displayed impressive technological advancements in various fields, including architecture, mathematics, and astronomy. These accomplishments continue to awe us today. However, the claim of ancient nuclear weapons surpasses the boundaries of accepted historical understanding.

Theoretical Basis

The notion of ancient nuclear weapons is often based on interpretations of ancient texts and myths, which are subject to multiple translations and interpretations. Some proponents argue that ancient texts contain descriptions of advanced weapons capable of massive destruction, which they associate with nuclear technology. However, it is essential to approach these texts with caution, taking into account their cultural, metaphorical, or symbolic contexts.

Lack of Physical Evidence

One significant challenge in substantiating the existence of ancient nuclear weapons is the lack of concrete physical evidence. Nuclear reactions leave behind distinct traces, such as radioactivity and isotopic anomalies, which can be detected by modern scientific techniques. However, to date, no such evidence has been found in archaeological excavations or ancient artifacts.

Misinterpretations and Symbolism

Another factor contributing to the misconception of ancient nuclear weapons is the misinterpretation of ancient symbols and artworks. Ancient civilizations often used symbolism to represent power, destruction, or cosmic forces, which can be misinterpreted as evidence of advanced technologies. For example, the Hindu deity Shiva, often depicted with multiple arms, has been associated with nuclear weapons, yet this interpretation overlooks the symbolic meaning of the deity within the Hindu religious tradition.

Historical Context and Warfare

It is important to consider the historical context and available technologies of ancient civilizations when evaluating the claim of ancient nuclear weapons. Warfare in ancient times primarily relied on conventional weapons such as swords, spears, and bows. The military strategies, tactics, and recorded battles of ancient civilizations align with conventional warfare, lacking evidence of the devastating impact of nuclear weapons.

Alternative Explanations

While the existence of ancient nuclear weapons is highly unlikely, alternative explanations can shed light on certain phenomena that have been misinterpreted. Natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions, meteorite impacts, or other cataclysmic events may have been mistakenly attributed to the use of advanced weapons due to their destructive effects.

Conclusion

While the idea of ancient nuclear weapons may captivate the imagination, an objective assessment of historical evidence, physical traces, and cultural contexts reveals a lack of credible support for such claims. Ancient civilizations indeed achieved remarkable technological advancements, but attributing the existence of nuclear weapons to them exceeds the realm of possibility. It is crucial to approach ancient texts, symbols, and myths with critical analysis, taking into account their cultural and metaphorical significance. By separating fact from fiction, we can deepen our understanding of the ancient world and appreciate the real achievements of these remarkable civilizations.

The definition of a nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its power from nuclear reactions. The nuclear reaction is a result of fission or a combination of fission and fusion. More specifically they are called fission bombs (for fission) and thermonuclear bombs (the combination of fission and fusion). The active element in most modern nuclear weapons is plutonium. When the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the bombs contained about 64kg of enriched uranium. Upon detonation, nuclear weapons release lethal radiation, shock waves, and scorching heat. The explosion were equivalent to 15 kilotons of chemical explosions. After the explosion, radioactive debris was carried by wind to cause radioactive fallout. Nuclear bombs haven’t been used in warfare since the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan during WWII. Even though nuclear weapons, such as the atomic bombs dropped on Japan, haven’t been used since, then there have been around 2000 nuclear bomb detonations, mainly from the U.S.A and the Soviet Union. The first nuclear weapon was made in the 1930’s by the U.S.A, the United Kingdom, Canada, and free France. This collaboration was given the name, the Manhattan Project. J. Robert Oppenheimer was credited as the man who created the first nuclear weapon. He was given the nickname, “Father of The Atomic Bomb”. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima and then dropped three days later on Nagasaki, was the largest loss of life in the shortest amount of time. A Jewish scientist by the name of Leo Szilard, patented the idea of nuclear chain reaction via neutrons. This patent included the theory of critical mass, the smallest amount of radioactive material to sustain the chain reaction and to cause an explosion. Since the atomic bombing of Japan in 1945, many countries have built nuclear weapons of higher caliber than those used on Japan. The first nuclear weapons had to be air dropped above the targeted area/region, but scientific development has made it to launch nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are now warheads placed on surface to air ballistic missiles. After WWII Russia and the U.S.A began the Cold War. The Cold War was started by further development of nuclear weapons. During the Cold War, which was in between 1945-1992, the Americans developed somewhere near 32,000 nuclear weapons of 30 different types at their peak in 1966.

In social perspectives nuclear weapons are a topic with a pretty straight forward opinion with exception to some. Most people are terrified of nuclear weapons. There are people who have formed the Antinuclear movement or are a part of the Antinuclear movement. Antinuclear Movements aren’t only opposed to the production of nuclear weapons such as the atomic and hydrogen bomb. They also oppose using nuclear energy for electricity production and anything nuclear related. They base their beliefs on social standpoints such as conflicts between nuclear power applications and policies and personal values. But others believe they are a necessary tool in world peace. They may be necessary for world peace but they are also one of the leading reasons for America’s rotten and worsening relations with foreign countries such as North Korea. Switching back to antinuclear movements, these people prefer and preach the use of alternate fuels. They also fear that with the progression of nuclear weapons there will be a rise in nuclear weapons used in attacks of terror. Nuclear waste is difficult to dispose of properly and is another reason that the antinuclear movement is what it is. Scientists who helped develop the first atomic bomb with plutonium as it’s radioactive element, became more and more concerned with the destructive and horrifying power they have harnessed. The antinuclear movement was sparked after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki nearing the end of WWII. The start of this antinuclear movement was by scientists who did not like the idea of the military having control over atomic energy. The scientist formed a group called FAS, Federation of American Scientists. While the Cold War escalated, FAS was in support of the McMahon act which placed control of atomic energy with a civilian group called AEC, Atomic Energy Commision. In the 1950’s there was more effort to support world wide sharing and cooperation of nuclear materials through Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace proposal to the United Nations. Even though this proposal led to better control and research of atomic energy, this meant that more countries had access and the ability to make nuclear weapons. This led to both the government and the private sector constructing the first commercial nuclear power plants. This also caused an uproar in the antinuclear community because a large sum of government funding went towards research and development. Alongside this they were furious because there was little known about the environmental impacts of nuclear power plants.

For scientific advancements in nuclear weapons there is a lot that needs to be done if that is what is to be decided. For them to be more effective they need to be more compact and more agile than what is currently being used. A better delivery system would also benefit the process of expanding nuclear weapons research and development in the future. In theory if they can eliminate radioactive fallout after a nuclear weapon is detonated, that would be much safer, relatively. Also theoretically if they can make a more dense and effective radioactive isotope that would have equal or greater effect than what is currently being used would progress nuclear weapon development. If these two theoreticals can be achieved there is still more to do like build better housing units because the newer and denser radioactive isotope will give a stronger geiger counter reading meaning it has stronger radiation. Plutonium was an unknown element to man until it was created by humans in 1943. To further progress nuclear weapons a new and better nuclear/radioactive isotope needs to be created. This is in reference to what was mentioned in the text earlier saying a new radioactive isotope is needed to further research and development of nuclear weapons in the future. After the Cold War the American government and antinuclear groups went to work with new policies to limit, restrict, and end certain aspects to atomic energy and nuclear weapons. With America’s worsening relationships with foreign countries, the United Nations, Federation od American Scientists, and the Atomic Energy Commision, should come up with new policies and Geneva war laws that forbid unauthorized launch of nuclear weapons. This could mean completely banning and safely disposing of nuclear weapons or putting a limit on how many nuclear weapons a country can have. This rule would have a large amount of things weighing in on it like reasons for certain amounts, enemies, and the countries past, future, and present regarding nuclear weapons. If a country uses its arsenal of nuclear weapons to threaten the world with a launch for certain bizzare reasons, like North Korea, that country should not have any nuclear weapons.

People fear what the future of nuclear weapons will bring with it. They have seen and heard about the horrors that follow heavy exposure following the initial explosion. Not to mention what happens within the radius of the explosion. They fear that future nuclear weapons are going to cause worse radioactive fallout which in turn will cause more dangerous health risks, ruin the landscape, and cause radiation poisoning to food that all living things consume. To go slightly off topic, nuclear weapons isn’t the only thing that the public is afraid of in that stand point. People who know about Chernobyl know how dangerous a malfunction in a nuclear power plant can be. Chernobyl can not be inhabited for around another 2000 years at least because of the immense amount of radiation. The people who are extremely opposed to anything nuclear related are the ones that form the antinuclear movement groups. They are afraid of what the government isn’t going to do to help regarding anything nuclear related. There is no safe and proper way to handle radioactive substances. Disposal of nuclear substances is extremely difficult to do safely and properly. They are afraid of human errors and malfunctions that can cause horrible fallouts. They are also afraid of a nuclear war.

To summarize, anything nuclear related is a touchy topic with mixed opinions. On the other hand nuclear weapons are usually seen as a necessary weapon in war and necessary to keep things calm to a certain degree. Then again with so many countries possessing the power of nuclear weapons there is tension that can easily lead to a nuclear war. Antinuclear groups were started to convince the government and the public to put bans and restrictions on atomic energy. For nuclear weapons to advance, missile engineering needs to advance as well. For nuclear weapons to be more effective a new radioactive isotope that is more radioactive than uranium 235 needs to be made or discovered. And people are on the fence about nuclear technology leaning to the side of no.