Nuclear Weapons testing have realized radiation into the environment. These tests have always been justified as necessary for national security. According to me, I disagree because if a nation allows nuclear weapons testing in its ground, then it should be ready for the aftermath repercussion, which is quite devastating. There is need to avoid using nuclear weapons for a nations security at the expense of its private citizens. Non-nuclear weapons can instead be used since they are less costs and just benefits. Risks of Nuclear Weapons
According to Regina (2004), nuclear weapons testing pose environmental and international threats especially to the population surrounding the nuclear testing plant. The following highlights are the risks: • The explosion of nuclear device spreads lethal radioactive materials like dynamite (dirty bomb) which contaminates the region and will remain in the ecosystem for years. This causes cancer risks through drinking of contaminated water. • During nuclear weapon is testing, the major effects are either direct or indirect.
Direct in the sense that it results to blast effects including production of flying debris and indirect in the sense that structures collapse especially when near a residential buildings or highly populated region. The population is then exposed to direct radiant energy and the thermal effect leading to permanent burns and traumatized population. A practical example is what happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during Second World War. • It has a permanent effect to the environment leading to increased cancer rates, organ damage, conjoined twins birth system and genetic modifications.
• Accidental launches due to false alarms can cause two counties to use the nuclear weapons accidentally leading to mass destruction and loss of life. • The effects of nuclear testing can go as far as across its borders to neighboring countries. For example the on Aug. 2, 1987, the explosion at the Novaya Zemlya test site in the Russian Arctic produced radioactivity that was detected in Scandinavia (Glasstone, 2003). Benefits of non-nuclear weapons for national security Basically, using non-nuclear weapons in advantageous: • The costs of nuclear weapons are very high as compared to non-nuclear weapons.
Hence these resources could substantially be used for other developmental issues for the country. • They do not pose environmental risks to the private citizens and state hence a healthy nation. • Non-nuclear weapons reflects reduction of tension between two nations hence improves their relations especially between the state and private citizens. • Nuclear weapons powers have qualitative constraints as compared to the quantitative cuts of their arsenals Measures like total ban should be formulated by global treaties against nuclear weapons that should:
• Pressurize countries to forgo the process nuclear launches. • Build confidence and strengthen the growing conviction about the ineffectiveness of nuclear armaments for the security of nations. • Improve safety and security through the international monitoring network in nuclear stations. Basing on the current global security realities countries should come up with well-formulated policy to ban the use of nuclear weapons especially to the countries that have high nuclear arsenals like USA, Russia Pakistan and India (Hurst, et al, 2005).
In conclusion, nuclear weapons do not contribute to the security of a nation but are of self-aggression and destruction; therefore, they should be completely abolished to avoid their further imminent threat. REFERENCES Glasstone, S. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, Revised Edition, New York: U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Press, 2003. Hurst, G. et al. Nuclear delivery systems deployments and developments; Making of U. S. Policy, New York: Rutledge, 2005. Regina, C. Security with Nuclear Weapons? London: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Courtney from Study Moose
Hi there, would you like to get such a paper? How about receiving a customized one? Check it out https://goo.gl/3TYhaX