Hey Guys. This is a topic that I can talk about for ages, so i'll try not to bore you all to death. I'll start with a basic history of nuclear weapons. They were developed during World War II, and in order to put an end to the war, the US dropped two nuclear warheads on Japan. After a few countries had developed nuclear weapons, a treaty was signed, preventing countries from gaining nuclear capabilities after that point. Before this was signed, China, The US, France, Russia, and The UK had nuclear weaponry. Since the treaty was put into place, India, Pakistan, North Korea, and possibly Israel have gained nuclear capabilities. I believe that the UN should have possession of nuclear weaponry, but no individual countries. That way, there is a way to hold back countries like North Korea, who have nuclear weapons and won't give them up. That would stop a nuclear war that could destroy the planet, while stopping one rouge country from having all the power. Thanks for reading, despite my wordiness.
-Eli
I do not think even the United Nations should be in possession of nuclear weapons, albeit I don't see them coming to a decision in a scenario where nuclear weapons activation is called for. There is a reason military hierarchies are not democratic. There is a reason that the President is the Commander-in-chief, and not congress. If the UN had control of the weapons, action and decision making would be sluggish and disastrous.
ReplyDeleteYes, but if no one had nuclear weapons, and one country developed them, then there would be no way to stop them.
ReplyDeleteInvestment in defense systems would be a plausible investment, instead of nuclear weapons. While it may not be realistic now, anti-missile defense systems are an area of military weaponry which will be rapidly expanding.
ReplyDelete