Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Fang 1

Elijah Fang

Ms. McKiddy

Pre-AP English 9, Per. 1

11 March 2016

The Use of Nuclear Weapons: Yes or no?

Think about it, a weapon made solely to annihilate, a weapon that could easily destroy

thousands of human life. What kind of weapon could do this? Nuclear weapons, a powerful

weapon with a potential to destroy cities, killing hundreds and thousands. This weapon of mass

destruction could possibly end the human race. Some countries even live on edge every single

day of their life, prepared to take action whenever nuclear warheads are launched. The use of

nuclear weapons is unnecessary and should be banned due to its controversy, high production

cost, and its destructive power.

Now, the big question, why or why not should the use of nuclear weapons be banned

throughout the world? Well, we have used atomic bombs to end World War 2, by dropping them

on Japan’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US literally ended this war with a bang, a destructive

one also. This method was very controversial, due to the fact that the US murdered many

innocent Japanese civilian lives. Besides the controversy, the warheads helped us through the

Cold War. The US boasted their nuclear arsenal, causing tension to rise, but successfully

preventing the USSR from launching their own attacks.

First of all, one of the reasons why the use of nuclear weapons should be banned is

because of the controversy. For example, in the article, “Tokyo Admits Hiroshima Destroyed by

Atomic Bomb”, written by William F. Tyree, it states, “Most of the bodies found in the area of
Fang 2

devastation were so badly battered it was impossible to distinguish men from women” (Tyree

n.pg.). Approximately, 100,000 or more Japanese civilians and soldiers were killed in Hiroshima.

100,00 or more innocent civilians murdered in this act of war. Now, Hiroshima did house many

soldiers, and many US soldiers may say that this bombing had saved their lives, but they

shouldn’t forget that approximately 80% of the casualties were Japanese civilians. Another

example of controversy is in the same article, in which a broadcaster states that the heat from the

atomic bomb was so intense that all of the living things within the radius would have been

burned by the immense heat (Tyree n.pg.). Now, all living things meant animal life and the

ecosystem within the blast radius, therefore, the entire area was turned to a barren wasteland.

This also happened to Nagasaki, creating two barren wastelands, waiting to be rebuilt. These are

a few reasons why nuclear weapons should be banned due to the controversy.

Next, the use of nuclear weapons should be banned because of its high production costs.

For example, in the article, “Back to the Cold War on Nuclear Spending?”, by Walter Pincus, the

author states that $95 million will be put into the construction of a nuclear facility, which will

store and maintain weapons (Pincus 13). This is a huge problem. Most of the society’s tax money

goes into the research of this facility. But wait, there’s more. Another example, in the same

article, Pincus states, “President Obama’s budget for fiscal 2016 seeks $8.8 billion for the

nuclear weapons program run by the National Nuclear Security Administration” (Pincus 13).

Basically, Obama is willing to waste $8.8 billion on the research on nuclear weapons. Imagine

what that $8.8 billion could have done if it went towards the research for the cure of cancer, or if

it went to help the people in need, the homeless, the poor, the starving children! These are only a
Fang 3

couple of examples of why nuclear weapons should be banned, due to the fact that it’s

production costs are high.

Now, many people who support the use of nuclear weapons may say that disarmament

will never work due to the fact that many countries aren’t willing to dispose their nuclear

warheads since the weapon is expensive and great for offense and defense. Although this is true,

it is still shown that the amount of nuclear warheads have gone down, gradually. For example, in

the article, “Nuclear Overkill”, written by Dianne Feinstein, she explains that during the Cold

War, the US and Russia developed over 30,000 warheads in order to keep another team from

gaining the upper hand. Feinstein then states that the US now has around 5,000 nuclear weapons,

which clearly shows that America has disarmed plenty of warheads (Feinstein n.pg.). 5,000 is

still plenty of warheads, but think about it, it’s definitely less than 30,000. Next, people who

support nuclear warheads may also say that using nuclear warheads will use less infantry

soldiers, therefore preventing casualties. But, like before, nuclear warheads require a lot of

money. In the same article, “Nuclear Overkill”, Feinstein states that reducing the extra arsenal is

pointless and it’ll save money, and a lot of it (Feinstein n.pg.). Having extra nuclear warheads

needs constant maintaining, therefore draining money. Although it is good to have a backup, it’s

a low blow to economy. These are a few solutions to the arguments referring to the topic.

Lastly, the use of nuclear weapons should be banned because of its destructive power.

For example, in the newspaper article, by Alan Robock and Owen Brian Toon, the authors state,

“-smoke from fires ignited by nuclear explosions would be so dense that it would block out the

sun, turning the earth cold, dark and dry, killing plants and preventing agriculture for at least a

year” (Robock, Toon 31). Now, theoretically, if this happens, it is a phenomenon called a nuclear
Fang 4

winter. This destructive power could end many lives, due to an insufficient amount of crops to

feed on, a cold weather, etc. Another example, in the document, “Truman says Atomic Bomb

Used Against Japan”, by Virgil Pinkley, the author states, “There came a tremendous, sustained

roar and a heavy pressure wave knocked down two men outside the control tower 10,000 yards

from the explosion” (Pinkley n.pg.). With this vivid description, the audience can easily picture

the monstrous strength an atomic bomb has. Pinkley also states that a tower made up of steel was

completely demolished, and a gigantic crater was created nearby. (Pinkley n.pg.) Again, Pinkley

describes the force of the atomic bomb, and the damage it can cause, if used correctly. All of

these examples clearly illustrates the damage nuclear weapons can create and the destructive

power it contains.

There are many factors to this problem, which will affect the answer. For example, will

other countries be willing to get rid of their own nuclear devices, or can the US actually trust

other countries to disarm their nuclear warheads? If the use of nuclear weapons was wiped from

the face of Earth, money wouldn’t have been wasted on machines of certain death. Many

countries wouldn’t live in constant fear. But the only thing it won’t stop is war. ​War is something

that can never be stopped.

Anda mungkin juga menyukai