Would a World without Nuclear Weapons be more or less secure Essay

Would a World without Nuclear Weapons be more or less infrangible - Essay Example either other day, we listen to different kinds of debates related to atomic engineering science and weapons present with different nations around the world. These debates atomic crook 18 for and against the nuclear weapons but this fact cannot be denied that a world without nuclear weapons would be more secure as people will not have an option for massive destruction. Chernobyl incident, Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear attack and japans Fukushima nuclear radiations are the worst lessons which nuclear weapons and energy have taught humankind. Nations must endeavour to drill nuclear energy for power generation for meeting the rising energy needs. We cannot say that without nuclear weapons, there would be no fight on this earth but massive massacre can be controlled by putting a check on nuclear weapons and eradicating them altogether from the face of the earth to however humanity. Nuclear weapons c an kill not hundreds but thousands and millions of people residing in any country and be to any nation within no time and this capability of the weapons makes them extensively vicious and fatal. In the arcsecond World War, United States attacked Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two cities of Japan with nuclear bombs and its residents are still bearing the consequences of that damaging occurrence. The cities got destructed all told and this happening cannot be forgotten as it informed about the destructiveness through nuclear weapons (Weart 58). Nuclear technologys negative usage started from Second World War and at this juncture, many states have nuclear power and can use it when they feel a need. These cities are still suffering from the radiations of nuclear attacks that took purpose almost half a century ago. After effects of such disasters are long measure and nations suffer for a prolonged period. People around the world agree that nuclear weapons are disadvantageous for the masses . Perkovich & Acton (2009) inform, States possess nuclear weapons because they fear they might face threats of massive destruction. If they all get rid of nuclear weapons, major warfare might not break out immediately, but the chances of such conflict flood tide about would rise dramatically.this tendency have speed up the race to acquire nuclear weapons for creating a deterrence in the world. This has given value to get nuclear weapon and indulged nations in arm race. (p. 21). The nuclear states around the world feel that a one-sided disarmament must be there to decimate all the nuclear weapons altogether but this step is quite unenviable to take for the countries and their governments, as unilateral disarmament is not accepted by all the countries. Separate disarmament is also a difficult step to be taken by the governments having the nuclear capability because they consider that disarmament will earmark other States to attack them. Nuclear states have doubts of outside attac k due to which, they do not require to get rid of their nuclear weaponry power. US and Russia have agreed to take measures to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. This step will help the great powers to avoid falling of such lethal weapons in the hands of terrorist organizations (Drell & Goodby 25). Third world countries must be encouraged to dismantle the nuclear facilities and reason out the core issues through peaceful negotiations. Big nations must take first step to save prox of world. Russia and America will soon sign strategic arms reduction treaty (START). This treaty would minify the number of deployed warheads of both the countries from 2200 to 1500. Still both countries will maintain large stocks of short-range nuclear weapons. some(prenominal) countries still need to negotiate to cut down the stock of 500 warheads each (Eland 2010). With these 500