Nuclear Weapons: Good or Bad?

Reaction paper Nuclear Weapons Danger or Necessity? The use of nuclear weapons has been chthonic much debate from the moment the sphere witnessed their destructive power. As seen in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the aftermath left by these weapons is utter chaos, having a profound power on both victims and witnesses lives. However, author Kenneth N. Waltz advocates the necessity of nuclear weapons as a balance of power between countries.Another author, Robert S. McNamara stands in respect of eliminating nuclear weapons for good, bringing reassurance of peace for a fearful populace. As debates over nuclear weapon use rage on, the threat is still lay out and must be handled carefully to avoid a homophile make apocalypse. McNamara and his stance on eliminating nuclear weapons is sensible, primarily due to the common man and woman agreeing with his logic.Nuclear weapons in todays world pack no purpose but to scare opposing countries from complete warfare, a purpose that hopefully st ays that way. While they were an everyday occurrence during the bleak war years, concerns with the growth of existing nuclear stockpiles are no eight-day front page news. In an era where the security agenda is go past by fighting terrorism, we are more worried that terrorist organizations or jack regimes might acquire nuclear weapons and inflict unspeakable damage to the targeted countries.McNamara argues that The countries of the world should try to eliminate their nuclear arsenal because of the utter devastation these weapons passel inflict on humanity (p 147). McNamara also states that By intensifying its efforts in sustaining, recentizing, and improving its nuclear stockpile while refusing to ratify the Comprehensive t anyy Ban Treaty, the United States sends a message that it is not serious just about nuclear non-proliferation (p 147).In order for complete nuclear disarmament, all cards must be playing the same game. Kenneth Waltz is one of few advocators in favor of n uclear weapons, but he does suck a solid argument. Leading scholars of foreign relations and policymakers share in the belief that the sheer destructiveness of nuclear weapons prevents them from being used by friends and foes alike. The halt effect of nuclear weapons is rooted in their possession rather than in their use.Waltz argues that Nuclear weapons make states cautious and less likely to lock away in reckless behavior (p 156). He also states that While the great destructiveness of nuclear weapons makes them excellent weapons for defensive purposes-the weapons have no offensive principle (p 155). Though Waltz does not advocate widespread nuclear armament, he does submit that nuclear weapons are great contributors to stability in the international system.After reading and analyzing the arguments of both authors, I take my stance with McNamara and his check toward eliminating nuclear weapons. Recently in an article on NY Times, the US and Russia agree on a nuclear disarmam ent treaty that shows progress in eliminating nuclear weapons by dismantling the two biggest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the modern world. This, I believe, is just the beginning of the end for nuclear weapons around the world which would keep humanity much safer and hopefully create long persistent peace.