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

     When one thinks of complete and sum total annihilation, the plumage of aninfamous mushroom obliterate is undoubtedly 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 put out of atomic 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 thermonuclear arm should countries dismantle their nuclear arms andwhether a nuclear war can occur, without resulting in a total nuclear holocaustof both conflicting parties.      closely all, who know of the rise in contemporaneous technology, oppose thefirst subheading, dismantling nuclear weapon s but, before stating theirreasoning, we will change our viewpoint to that of the naive (no insultintended) or too optimistic. Assuming all nations tear down their nuclearweapons tomorrow the world would be peaceful no more nuclear weapons, no more towering destruction, no more bad guys. What? scarcely 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 attitude 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 to distributively other.     The second subheading, whether a nuclear war can occur withoutescalating into a vi ctorless, nuclear holocaust, is an evolving argument out-of-pocket toits dependency on modern technology. The two stances on this topic are known bytheir acronyms of nuts and MAD (Nuclear Utilization Target Selection, andMutually Assured final stage 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 inNuclear Weapons Destructors Or Saviors? Nuclear Weapons Essays     When one thinks of complete and total annihilation, the plumage of aninfamous mushroom cloud is undoubtedly an image which comes to mind. Thisomi nous 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 dismantled their nuclearweapons tomorrow the wor ld 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 Utilization Target Selection, andMutually As sured 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