Nuclear Weapons: Destructors Or Saviors? :: Nuclear Weapons Essays

     When one thinks of complete and total annihilation, the plume of aninfamous mushroom calumniate is undoubtedly an go through which comes to mind. Thisominous image is ". . . a tiger which must(prenominal) be looked in the eye," (Looking theTiger in the Eye, 1982). The origin for which we must visualise the issue of thermo atomic weapons, is best express in the words of J. Robert Oppenheimer, ". . .until we live with looked this tiger in the eye, we sh every ever be in the worst of whollypossible dangers, of which we may back into him." In an attempt to preventourselves from back into this proverbial tiger, we will discuss the side by side(p)subheadings of nuclear arms should countries knock down their nuclear arms andwhether a nuclear war buttocks occur, without resulting in a total nuclear final solutionof both conflicting parties.      near all, who know of the rise in modern-day technology, oppose thefirst subheading, disassembly nuclear weapons but, before stating theirreasoning, we will channelize our viewpoint to that of the naive (no spiteintended) or too optimistic. Assuming all nations dismantled their nuclearweapons tomorrow the world would be peaceful no more(prenominal) nuclear weapons, no moreeminent destruction, no more bad guys. What? Exactly How stop we eliminatethe evil side of humans, their internal dark side? This leads to the reasonsupporting the maintenance of existing, and the development of hereafter nuclearweapons. When a nation, terrorist group, or someone with ill intent securessole-control of nuclear capabilities, the world will be at the mercy of thisgroups sanity, since the world is currently nowhere near an pleasant en garde system. So from this scenario, one put up infer that in the present, the whole deterrent to nuclear war is the world of nuclear arms in opposition toeach other.     The second subheading, whether a nuclear w ar can occur withoutescalating into a victorless, nuclear holocaust, is an evolving blood due toits dependency on modern technology. The two stances on this report are known bytheir acronyms of kookie and MAD (nuclear Utilization fundament Selection, andMutually Assured terminal respectively). The position taken by NUTS is thatlimited use of nuclear weapons can occur, without igniting an all-out, nuclearholocaust-resulting in the death of both conflicting parties, and thus amutual loss. The major shifting on which NUTS lies is that no nuclear nationpossesses, or is judge to soon possess, an acceptable defensive shieldagainst nuclear weapons. While this erroneousness is not due to our skill to destroyinbound weapons, it is due to our accuracy in destroying the sheer measurement inNuclear Weapons Destructors Or Saviors? Nuclear Weapons Essays     When one thinks of complete and total annihilation, the plumage of aninfamous mushroom cloud is undoubted ly an image which comes to mind. Thisominous image is ". . . a tiger which must be looked in the eye," (Looking theTiger in the Eye, 1982). The reason for which we must examine the issue ofnuclear weapons, is best stated in the words of J. Robert Oppenheimer, ". . .until we have looked this tiger in the eye, we shall ever be in the worst of allpossible dangers, of which we may back into him." In an attempt to preventourselves from backing into this proverbial tiger, we will discuss the followingsubheadings of nuclear arms should countries dismantle their nuclear arms andwhether a nuclear war can occur, without resulting in a total nuclear holocaustof both conflicting parties.     Virtually all, who know of the rise in modern-day technology, oppose thefirst subheading, dismantling nuclear weapons but, before stating theirreasoning, we will change our viewpoint to that of the naive (no insultintended) or too optimistic. Assuming all nations dismantl ed their nuclearweapons tomorrow the world would be peaceful no more nuclear weapons, no moreeminent destruction, no more bad guys. What? Exactly How can we eliminatethe evil side of humans, their inherent dark side? This leads to the reasonsupporting the maintenance of existing, and the development of future nuclearweapons. When a nation, terrorist group, or someone with ill intent securessole-control of nuclear capabilities, the world will be at the mercy of thisgroups sanity, since the world is currently nowhere near an acceptabledefensive system. So from this scenario, one can infer that in the present, theonly deterrent to nuclear war is the existence of nuclear arms in opposition toeach other.     The second subheading, whether a nuclear war can occur withoutescalating into a victorless, nuclear holocaust, is an evolving argument due toits dependency on modern technology. The two stances on this topic are known bytheir acronyms of NUTS and MAD (Nuclear Util ization Target Selection, andMutually Assured Destruction respectively). The position taken by NUTS is thatlimited use of nuclear weapons can occur, without igniting an all-out, nuclearholocaust-resulting in the devastation of both conflicting parties, and hence amutual loss. The major fault on which NUTS lies is that no nuclear nationpossesses, or is expected to soon possess, an acceptable defensive shieldagainst nuclear weapons. While this fault is not due to our ability to destroyinbound weapons, it is due to our accuracy in destroying the sheer quantity in