Some believe that nuclear weapons benefit the world at large

• North Korea could have the material for more than one hundred nuclear weapons, according to analysts’ estimates. It has successfully tested missiles that could strike the United States with a nuclear warhead. • It has the world’s fourth-largest military, with more than 1.2 million personnel, and is believed to possess chemical and biological weapons. • Despite UN Security Council sanctions and past summits involving North Korea, South Korea, and the United States on denuclearization, Pyongyang continues to test ballistic missiles. Introduction The United States and its Asian allies see North Korea as a grave security threat. North Korea has one of the world’s largest conventional military forces, which, combined with its missile and nuclear tests and aggressive rhetoric, has aroused concern worldwide. But world powers have been ineffective in slowing its path to acquire nuclear weapons. While it remains among the poorest countries in the world, North Korea spends nearly a quarter of its gross domestic product (GDP) on its military, according to U.S. State Department estimates. Its brinkmanship will continue to test regional and international partnerships aimed at preserving stability and security. Negotiations on denuclearization have remained stalled since February 2019. What are North Korea’s nuclear capabilities? More on: The exact size and strength of North Korea’s nuclear arsenal are unclear. However, analysts say Pyongyang has tested nuclear weapons six times and d...

You should spend about 40 minutes on Some believe that nuclear weapons benefit the world at large. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience. You should write at least 250 words. Sample Answer The subject of nuclear power has been a controversial one throughout the world. Many people believe that nuclear weapons are advantageous, while others disagree with this notion. Therefore, this essay will propound on the fact that nuclear weapons would possibly lessen the chance of war and benefit a larger population. To begin with, the most promising ARGUMENT on the positive aspect of having a nuclear weapon for a country is that it increases its confidence. It can ensure peace not only for its own citizens but also for the citizens of its neighboring countries. In other words, the knowledge that no other countries will consciously raise a war against these superpowers as they can easily destroy their enemies with nuclear weapons boosts their morale and they can also provide shelter to the ones in need. For example, some countries, namely, US and Russia ever since the Cold War and Cuban Missile Crisis are seen maintaining peace and maintaining diplomatic relations. The only reason why this has happened is that they now have nuclear powers. The real irony is that having nuclear weapons ensures safety for millions of lives and clean energy production, rather than a destructive method t...

But snuffing out a country’s nuclear capabilities is perhaps even more costly. It requires Iran, for example, is seeking nuclear technology while coldly aware of the United States’ military superiority. Likewise, the rest of the world is aware of America’s massive nuclear arsenal—and of the fact that it’s capable of annihilating any country on Earth at a moment’s notice. This kind of behavior toward other countries, needless to say, won’t engender kindness and cooperation. North Korea knows that developing a small nuclear arsenal has made the U.S. much more hesitant to invade its borders. It’s a lesson Pyongyang learned recently from countries without nuclear weapons—Iraq, Libya, Syria—that were subsequently invaded by the U.S. So it makes perfect sense that America’s enemies would be scrambling to develop nuclear weapons—not so they can fire them, but so they can also enjoy the benefits of deterrence. So the question becomes: How often is the U.S. willing to wage preventive wars, and with how many countries does it really want this kind of relationship? This isn’t to suggest that, for instance, a nuclear-capable Iran makes the world safer for the U.S., but it has to be viewed in the context of relative military power. For instance, take a look below at the sheer number of U.S. military bases that surround Iran. Barry Posen, Director of MIT’s So then, what should be America’s main objective when enemy states develop nuclear weapons? Posen told Big Think that the US should ...

People have been arguing about whether or not to use nuclear weapons. While there is some support for the advantages of nuclear weapons all over the world, from my point of view, I totally disagree with it. First, using nuclear weapons isn't the best way to solve the problem. While nuclear weapons are directly dangerous to humans and the environment, the effects of nuclear weapons are also expensive. For example, when the first nuclear weapon was dropped, it was a fission bomb nicknamed "Little Boy" on Hiroshima. Three days later, the US Air Force dropped a fission bomb, nicknamed "Fat Man," on the Japanese city of Nagasaki. The number of people killed has reached about 200,000. Building a city takes a very long time. However, for only a few seconds, the atomic bomb can take it all. Two cities were sunk in smog and many buildings were destroyed. People living in two cities were studying and working and were interrupted and faced the pain of losing loved ones, stripping them of joy as well as hope and leaving behind psychological scars that time couldn’t erase. Second, nuclear weapons devastate the environment. For example, the United States tested a massive hydrogen bomb on the Bikini Atoll in 1954. It’s more than 65 years later, but this location in the Marshall Islands chain is still not livable. In conclusion, nuclear weapons are a critical problem that may cause threats all over the world. Therefore, the key to dealing with it should be addressed immediately. Grammar a...

Theorists of both schools of international relations, neo-realist and neo-liberal, agree that the root cause of conflicting relations in the international system is the lack of a ‘central authority’ above nation states. ‘Anarchy’ rules the system and makes cooperation among states impossible. For neo-liberals, ‘anarchy’ can only be overcome and war averted with the establishment of international institutions and ‘recognised regimes’ which constitute the body of laws and norms in order to make defection and breach of agreements less likely and cooperation among states more likely. Realists negate the above argument. In the political world of realism, states are relatively positioned in accordance with their power and resources, and national security is determined by their ability to defend their citizens and their national sovereignty from external threats. Every state knows that rival states can use their superiority against them. This creates an environment of uncertainty and induces states to go after the ‘relative gains’ even at the cost of peace. Under the rule of ‘anarchy’ due to the lack of a centralised authority, conflicts in international politics remain a pervasive state of affairs whereas cooperation remains a difficult task to achieve. The above comparison shows that both schools have distinct explanation of wars but both agree that lack of a centralised order, which constitutes the ‘self-help system’ of anarchy, is the root cause of conflicting international r...

When have nuclear weapons come closest to destabilising world peace – and how close to the brink of nuclear war did the world come? Benoît Pelopidas: “How close was it?” is a misleading question if asked alone. One also needs to ask: how controllable was it? Indeed, some proponents of nuclear deterrence claim that you need to get close enough to the ‘nuclear abyss’ for the deterrent effect to kick in. But is that true? And can we control how close we get? A critical moment commonly cited in this regard was the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. And that was not fully controllable: the caution of Soviet premier Khrushchev and US president Kennedy alone cannot explain its peaceful outcome, given the limits of their control over their nuclear arsenals, the limits of safety of the weapons, and other factors. The evidence shows we have been lucky. Though the scholarly and policy worlds pay lip service to this finding, they still do not act and plan as if they take it seriously. Malcolm Craig: There are a number of other examples of times when this has happened. For example, during the first year of the Korean War (1950–53), President Harry Truman’s bluster and outbursts from General Douglas MacArthur provoked international fears about perceived American willingness to use atomic weapons. Perhaps the most interesting example was the November 1983 Able Archer incident , in which a Nato communications exercise was perceived by some in Moscow as preparation for an actual ...

Nuclear weapons are explosive devices that create a destructive force due to the fission or fusion reactions it creates upon detonation. There are several names for this technology, including atom bombs, nukes, a-bombs, and nuclear warheads, but it all works to describe the same technology. There have only been two times when nuclear weapons were deployed in war. Both of the incidents were initiated by the United States against Japan near the end of World War II. On August 6, 1945, the Army Air Forces detonated a fission bomb that was nicknamed Little Boy over the city of Hiroshima. Three days later, the implosion-type Fat Man was detonated over the city of Nagasaki. These two incidents caused injuries that resulted in the deaths of over 200,000 civilians and military personnel, along with several Americans and Allied troops in the area. Since these two wartime incidents, there have been over 2,000 detonations of nuclear weapons for demonstration and testing purposes. Despite this high number, only a few countries possess these weapons or are suspected of seeking them. South Africa is the only country on the planet to have independently developed this technology and then renounced and dismantled what they created. List of the Advantages of Nuclear Weapons 1. It reinforces the idea of nationalism from a border-based perspective. The reality of human existence is that people tend to go toward the areas of the planet where the most resources are available. This pattern of beh...