Nuclear Weapons: A Literal Ticking Time Bomb

Should nuclear weapons be destroyed?

Are they necessary?

Introductory Paragraph

Ever since the United States dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, in what

was the beginning of the end of the Second World War, several countries have seen the rise in

the proliferation of these weapons while others have gone on opposing them. Powerful countries

have since become nuclear powers while the ability of smaller and less powerful nations to

become nuclear powers has been curtailed by these powerful nations. It is for this reason that

only a handful of nations are nuclear capable and it is also for this reason that many of these

smaller nations want the world to be nuclear free. Many groups and non-governmental

organizations have since joined these efforts of achieving the target of having a world without

nuclear weapons, efforts which have been blocked on several occasions by these nuclear capable

nations, for example, the United States, Russia and Britain. Most of these nuclear capable

countries go on to state deterrence, defense and retaliation as the main reasons for developing

and possessing these weapons. Over the recent years, countries like Iran and North Korea have

also ventured into the field of developing nuclear weapons, another reason that has been cited by

the powerful countries as a reason for holding on to their weapons. Destruction of all nuclear

weapons in the world may lead to some kind of stability in the world without other non-nuclear

countries having to be worried all the time. However, this destruction may not really be the end

of intimidation and threats around the world as some countries may yet develop more powerful

weapons that are even more dangerous than nuclear weapons.

1
Revised Main Research Questions

1. Will the destruction of nuclear weapons lead to peace and stability around the world or

will it raise anxiety and fear among nations?

2. Is the increase in provocations among countries reason enough to be worried about

nuclear war?

3. Do smaller powers/less powerful countries have a point that no one should have nuclear

weapons?

4. Should every country in the world have the freedom to develop to develop and test

nuclear weapons or should it just be left to the big powers?

5. What are the major advantages and disadvantages destroying nuclear weapons? Do the

advantages outweigh the disadvantages or vice versa?

6. Does there exist enough and sufficient trust among different countries, especially the

nuclear powers, that if they destroy their weapons others will do the same?

7. Are there other means of self-defense and deterrence that can be used instead of nuclear

weapons in case countries decide to get rid of their nuclear weapons?

8. Is the world a safer place without nuclear weapons or will countries simply find other

means of possibly annihilating their enemies?

9. Will the advancement and development of other countries lead to increased nuclear

proliferation?

10. Should nuclear weapons be entrusted in the hands of world leaders who are otherwise

deemed ‘mentally unstable?

2
Argumentative Thesis Statement

Even though destroying all nuclear weapons in the world would go a long way into making the

world a safer place to live, it is not the only solution and path to world stability and peace and

countries may yet develop even more dangerous weapons to replace these nuclear weapons.

Supporting Arguments

1. While countries that are nuclear capable in the world may agree with the decision to

destroy these weapons, is this enough to ensure world peace and stability?

Personally, I do think so. Despite the fact that there are numerous advances that have

been made in the development of other deadly weapons in other fields, for example,

chemical and biological weapons, nuclear weapons still remain one of the world's leading

causes of fear and anxiety. Therefore, I believe that the destruction of these weapons will

go a long way into helping alleviate these fears, thereby bringing about stability in the

world. To achieve the much needed peace, security and stability in the world, we have to

start somewhere and I believe that the destruction of nuclear weapons would be a very

good place to begin as we try to achieve this very ambitious and farfetched goal. I

therefore believe that destroying nuclear weapons is very necessary and important and

although it might not bring about peace instantly, the world would have made a huge

positive step in the right direction.

2. The ownership of nuclear weapons by the powerful nations and a few less powerful

nations has brought about a lot of tensions and suspicions among the countries of

the world. Most countries no longer trust each other and each time there is an escalation

of tensions among different countries, there is always a fear that a nuclear war might

3
 break out. The most recent of these provocations has been witnessed between the United

States president Donald Trump and the North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un who have

threatened each other with nuclear war. Such provocations and tensions are just one of

the many reasons that push me to advocate for the destruction of all nuclear weapons

around the world. This is because without these presidents and world leaders having

nuclear weapons at their disposal, the threat of a war from either of them would not cause

as much worry around the world as it is doing right now. War, while it is a dangerously

bad thing that causes unwanted devastation, is much more bearable using conventional

weapons than it would be using nuclear weapons, whose effects are much more

devastating and span a very long period of time. If one these leaders decides to use the

nuclear weapons that are at their disposal, a lot more people would suffer as compared to

a conventional war. It is for this reason that I am a strong advocate for the destruction of

nuclear weapons, if only just to prevent an angry president whose ego has been bruised,

from devastating the world.

3. Countries that are nuclear capable should destroy their weapons so as to prevent

other smaller and less powerful countries from demanding that they also be allowed

to develop such weapons of their own. It is only a matter of time until other countries

decide that enough is enough and they take it upon themselves to develop nuclear

weapons. What is being witnessed in North Korea may simply be the first of many

instances where a less developed country decides to develop nuclear weapons in the

name of deterrence or self-defense. Over the past years, other countries have sat by and

watched as other more powerful and developed nations ventured into the field of nuclear

development and even engaged in an arms race. However, with other countries in Asia,

4
 Africa and South America fast developing, soon, they will reach a point whereby they

will require to protect themselves from possible confrontations from other countries and

when this time comes, these countries will want to develop nuclear weapons of their own.

When such a time comes, not even the United States, Russia or the United Nations might

be able to stop such a movement. It is therefore imperative that these powerful nations

take the necessary steps to ensure that nuclear weapons are destroyed before the whole

situation gets out of hand, leading to a possible nuclear world war.

Counter Arguments

1. The destruction of nuclear weapons by nuclear capable countries may not go on to

achieve the peace and stability that the world may be hoping for. As mentioned in the

argument above, the world is fast advancing and the field of warfare has not been left

behind. Countries are venturing into other fields and are developing weapons that may

soon replace nuclear weapons as the most revered of all the weapons. Despite treaties

barring or putting in check some these acts, countries continue to make advances in the

field of biological and chemical warfare. Therefore, destroying nuclear weapons alone

may not be the solution that advocates for such a plan are looking for. This is because

even if these weapons are destroyed, countries will still come up with something else to

replace them, with equal devastation or even more. Destroying nuclear weapons is

advisable and a good thing for the world, however, that alone will not solve everything.

2. Despite rising tensions and provocations among and between leaders, nothing of

substance will come of it. There has been fear, as argued above, from countries around

the world that a nuclear war might result from the tensions between some countries,

especially the United States and North Korea. These fears are ill informed. I say this

5
 because to start with, none of these leaders is prepared for the number of casualties and

the devastation that such a war might bring with it. It is said that war is expensive, but

nuclear war is even more expensive, very painful and hard to come back from. Donald

Trump knows this and Kim Jong-Un knows this. It is therefore my belief that both these

leaders have been using threats just to achieve their goals and to get what they want. The

United States wanted the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula while North Korea is

seeking for the sanctions imposed against them to be lifted. Therefore, such tensions and

strains and threats of nuclear war do not necessarily mean that there will be an actual war

and it is not reason enough to advocate for the destruction of nuclear weapons.

3. The claim above that as more countries become highly advanced and developed,

they too will want to have a seat at the table as nuclear powers, signaling the

beginning of a crisis and an eventual nuclear war could not be further from the

truth. The development of nuclear weapons requires a lot of resources and finances,

something that might cause these fast developing countries to think twice about

developing nuclear weapons. To develop such dangerous weapons, a country needs to put

in place a lot of safety measures, all of which require a lot of financial muscle and

capability. Most of these countries are also cautious about developing nuclear weapons,

fearing trade repercussions and sanctions from other countries as well as backlash from

their own citizens. Therefore, this reason can also not be said to be a valid one and cannot

be used as probable cause to destroy nuclear weapons.

Conclusion

Therefore, as seen in the arguments above, destruction (or lack thereof) of nuclear weapons is a

very ambitious dream that has its own advantages and disadvantages. While some may argue that

6
it is a good thing and exactly what is required to help in the process of achieving world peace

and security, others argue that this is simply not required and not enough. My position is that

although destroying the weapons is not enough, it will still be a step in the right direction

towards achieving stability and peace in the world. Despite the fact that there are rogue nations

out there, this is an avenue that needs to be given a try, seeing as all the other means and methods

that have been tried so far have failed. Otherwise, it would not be advisable to argue against

something that has never been tried. Nuclear weapons should therefore be destroyed.