Today we will be sharing thoughts on the topic "Is planetary nuclear disarmament possible?" When I think of nuclear bombs, what comes first into my mind is the devastation that the people of Japan had to endure after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of world war 2. That bombing killed thousands of people, and even those that survived, had to suffer from diseases like cancer and various side effects, owing to the high radiation exposure. It takes 10 seconds to detonate a nuclear bomb, but the consequences can be felt even after several decades.
No weapon is more horrific and devastating than nukes. No weapon causes such unimaginable human agony, and there is no way of knowing the spread of the radioactive waves or how long the effects will be present. Tens of thousands of people would die instantly if a nuclear weapon was detonated in a city, and tens of thousands more would suffer horrendous injuries and later die from radiation exposure. A nuclear war could inflict long-term damage to our planet and the enormous short-term loss of life. It can drastically upset the earth's ecosystem and lower global temperatures, resulting in global food shortages. That brings us to the question - is it possible to completely eradicate nuclear weapons?
Several global leaders and policymakers promise that it is possible. Nuclear weapons are no longer widely regarded as the most effective means of ensuring national security. In a world more preoccupied with other issues and difficulties, such as poverty, climate change, and economic slump, deterrence and mutually assured destruction have become outmoded concepts. They agree that a world devoid of nuclear weapons is still a dream that is unlikely to be realized in the lives of incumbent policymakers. However, they do believe that the vision must be presented brightly and effectively.
Nuclear abolition at a predetermined time in the near future is too quick. However, abandoning the subject for the time being and waiting until the twenty-first century is extremely slow. Too much haste may encourage states who have no interest in nuclear disarmament to build up arsenals assuming that existing nuclear powers will diminish, enhancing their embryonic atomic strength. Too much haste also lacks credibility in a world where some countries, such as Russia, Israel, and Pakistan, have made it evident that they have no intention of denuclearizing anytime soon.
With all the complications, is it still worth eradicating new weapons? Yes, because nuclear weapons offer a threat on the one hand and the positive influence of ideas and principles in world affairs. These weapons are so heinously damaging that they are illegal; they are inherently indiscriminate killers. They have also proven to be far more challenging to construct and handle than many people realize securely. They have no proper place in normal state interactions, even as obvious deterrents, and we should strive for a future where they no longer play such an active, operational role.
FAQs
What happened in Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, nuclear bombs were detonated at the end of world war 2.
How long does it take to detonate a nuclear bomb?
It takes 10 seconds to detonate a nuclear bomb.
Why is it worth eradicating nuclear weapons?
These weapons are so heinously damaging that they are illegal and inherently indiscriminate killers of humanity.
