Nuclear weapons are viewed as the most hazardous weapons in the world.

Nuclear Weapons: A Debatable Topic

Nuclear devices are commonly recognized as the most lethal weapons in the world. Via the ongoing devastating impact of the weapons, each is capable of destroying the whole city, murdering many civilians, and messing with the natural setting and the lives of future generations (Georgia, 2014). Despite the fact that only nuclear bombs have been used in the past, there are now over 22,000 warheads on the planet, with over 2000 experiments having been completed to date. Given the threats that they pose to civilization, they prove to be the primary deterrents of global conflicts that are erupting, as well as acts of violence by rogue nations. This highlights their bright side. Therefore, this paper intends to evaluate the positive and the negative sides of the nuclear weapons as a debatable topic and establish a stand concerning the issue.

Benefits of Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear arms bring with themselves a position of control and status amongst various nations across the globe. No one is ready to witness the nuclear violence on homeland soil and will do anything to prevent any circumstances that may lead to one. A practical example is North Korea. Though it has a bad repute of a rogue nation in the world perception, one cannot deny that other countries pay attention to every action they take because they have access to warheads.

Similarly, nations will be compelled to think twice before deciding to launch an attack on a country that is nuclear armed. Therefore, in the case of any conflicts that need to be resolved, economies in conflict will resort for negotiation to reach a treaty as a way to evade mass obliteration. The trend helps to ensure peace for a long time as possible. Countries lacking nuclear weapons will also desire to negotiate before deciding to fire any weapon of any kind. As a matter of fact, weapons are considered as insurance that is low cost against possible aggression, especially from the enormous power.

Moreover, as pointed out earlier, the presence of nuclear weapons deter major wars from taking place. A nuclear-powered country is less likely to be confronted by another nation even if they are in possession of nuclear weapons of their own (Metz, 2012). It comes from the fact that a good defense system allows a country to protect them adequately as well as retaliating the same way. Through this, there would be peace and any possible conflict will be solved through diplomatic talks rather than war. The weapons are controversial in that instead of making the country be in a position to defend itself against external attacks, they serve the contrary purpose. They are undoubtedly one of the main reasons that countries avoid going into war (Georgia, 2014).

The weapons lead to a term that is commonly known as a Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). The term was first devised during the cold war amid the former Soviet Union and the United States. When abrasion elevated between the two countries, it was the horror of joint destruction that provoked them to think about alternate ways to reach diplomatic resolutions instead of the war (Metz, 2012). As a matter of fact, many people believe that it was the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing that brought an end to the Second World War. Despite the reason that no one can agree that it was a commendable thing, according to statistics, more people could have lost their lives during the bombing (Metz, 2012).

Setbacks of Nuclear Weapons

Unlike other resources, nuclear weapons are expensive to own and can negatively affect the treasury of a particular country (Kamp, 2010). It may, as a result, make it challenging for the country to spend in some zones hence deterrence to balanced nationwide development. For instance, in a bid to stay in the arms race with India, Pakistan spent a key percentage of its affluence on purchasing digital nuclear weaponries while the citizens of the country were dying of hunger. Apart from economic effects, there have been several cases that have been reported that nuclear weapons were used accidentally due to human error. Regardless of anything that might have happened, as it is apparent, a simple human error can bring the world to an end with these dangerous weapons. A software glitch or computer program malfunction can accidentally initiate a nuclear hazard that can erase the entire humanity (Probst & McGovern, 2014).

Radioactive waste also stands to be a significant danger to countries that are doing well in the industry of nuclear weapons (Kamp, 2010). The business yields a large volume of low-level radioactive left-over that is present in consistent items that people come across daily. Continuous acquaintance to radiation will lead to cancers and disabilities, and the result can go on for several decades. Similarly, nuclear weapons in countries that are politically unstable such as countries like Pakistan and North Korea may lead to the falling of such arms in the hands of terrorist organizations (Probst & McGovern, 2014).

Such organizations have no fear of the danger that the weapons can cause to humanity and will be more than glad to use the weapons against the main cities which will become disastrous. Finally, it will be unfair to the contemporary society when discussing the setbacks of the nuclear weapons without mentioning the environmental pollution and degradation it has to both people and animals. Frequent nuclear tests that are being conducted by the world powers result in radiation contamination of both sea and land. The radiation, in turn, kills all plant and animals making such areas dead zones for several decades (Metz, 2012).

Morals that are related with individuals are always put into query when nuclear artilleries are brought in play. Some nations consider it decent to get rid of nuclear arms and reduce their numbers. It is because a high number of expenses are devoted at a time when the most serious risk people face is not nuclear attack but macroclimate change (Georgia, 2014). It is, therefore, an indication that a distraction from the real threat which is climate change is created in turn. Over 150,000 people die annually due to impacts of the climate change. Nations are still determined to waste a considerable amount of money on Trident instead of putting the world on a low-carbon path that is indispensable in avoiding the environmental impacts. The trend, in turn, places extra stress on international relations at a time when the universe needs to work together to tackle the great threat of climate change (Kamp, 2010).

Position

Nuclear weapons have both positive and negative impacts on the countries using them, as well as the entire universe. For instance, the countries having such weapons will earn themselves status and power positions among various nations (Probst & McGovern, 2014). Besides, it prevents many wars from happening because no country is ready to launch an attack on a country that is in possession of nuclear weapons. However, nothing can justify the use of these weapons, and this brings about the question of why they should be produced when there is constantly a threat and possibility that they can get into the wrong hands and the obliteration will be unavoidable and overwhelming.

The society needs to accept that the threat posed by nuclear weapons is a reality and the benefits that are linked to them can only remain so as long as they are possessed by the right people (Burgess, 2013). Therefore, it is apparent that negative impacts associated with the availability of such weapons surpass the benefits. Arms are categorized under weapons of mass destruction, hence highlighting the potential threat they have on humanity and the existence of the globe. Like pointed out earlier, a simple mistake in the operation of these weapons can lead to unimaginable disaster that can paralyze activities in the affected areas and, in the worst case scenario, kill every living thing in that particular place.

With such potential danger due to these weapons, the only solution is to embrace mass disarmament through diplomatic negotiation to slowly reduce the production of these arms and minimize the risk that they pose to both people using them and the people that they are used against. Again, this brings down the query as to why people generate something that can thrash the whole world as well as the ones who made and use it.

References

Burgess, J. (2013). 10 Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power.

Georgia, U. (2014). Welcome to GALILEO. Retrieved from https://www.galileo.usg.edu/welcome/

Kamp, K. H. (2010). NATO's Nuclear Weapons in Europe: Beyond" yes" Or" no". NATO Defense College, Research Division.

Mez, L. (2012). Nuclear energy–Any solution for sustainability and climate protection?. Energy Policy, 48, 56-63.

Probst, K. N., & McGovern, M. H. (2014). Long-term stewardship and the nuclear weapons complex: The challenge ahead. Routledge.