Uranium 235 With Some TNT, Miscellaneous, College Term Papers.com


		Data Bases
		• Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism?

		Links
		• Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com

		Free Essays
		• Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers

Search Lots of Essays

Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous

Uranium 235 With Some TNT

Uranium 235 With Some TNT When a lone B-29 flew over Hiroshima on August 29, 1945, the first nuclear weapon changed the course of international trust and relations. From that point on, countries tried to control each other with building and stockpiling superior nuclear arms. The question of nuclear limitations and of nuclear disarmament finally came under world review. The idea of one country possessing enough firepower to destroy the world is thoughtprovoking, but a look at the nuclear proponents brings up several good points. The concept of a world free of nuclear energy and weapons would shock most people. Nuclear power has existed for quite some time and has provided valuable services. If the structure of nuclear programs, weapons, research, and power plants, was removed, the world would be thrown into a state of political and economic imbalance. The failure of the five nuclear countries, U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China, to remain vigilant in their threat of nuclear power would cause third world countries to challenge the position of the five countries and bully their foes. The thought of nuclear disarmament is useless. Stability of peace, power, and trust are results of competition in the nuclear arms race of the two most powerful nuclear countries. The coalition of trust between countries considered to be a superpower by showing economic and militaristic power has kept other less powerful countries from acting rashly or blindly. Such was the case with Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait. The severe involvement of the U.S. and the minimal involvement by the U.N.’s posed a serious threat to the Iraq’s well-being. If Iraq provoked the U.S. enough, we might have turned to nuclear arms and solved the matter conclusively. By having nuclear presence in the world with two or more superpower countries, they can combat the threat of dictatorship and its expansion, instead of having a single indecisive group such as the U.N. controlling the arms. This structure allows for third world nations to develop, but in the way that they should be developing: raising the standards of living and advancing the general welfare of the people. If a third world country decides to develop a nuclear bomb, then that country would be putting a strain on the trust between the two ruling nuclear superpowers. One superpower will strongly disapproves, while the other power would choose the new nuclear country as another member of their “team”. Then the trust of cease fire comes into play, because the new nuclear country might decide to attack, and if given new weapons or more powerful ones, then that could lead into world wide war. The equal destructive capability between Russia and the U.S. during the cold war prevented each from firing at one another. Many times the U.S. almost plunged into war and possibly a “hot” firing round of nukes, but the thought of mutually assured destruction (M.A.D.) prevented that notion. The thought of using nuclear weapons in warfare today is purely a bluff. It is like saying your big brother will come after the bully, but you neither have a brother, nor would he come if you did. Nuclear weapons are just a point that is used as a cornerstone to slowly build trust among the nuclear countries. By building that trust, the countries can then turn their attention to other matters such as general welfare and internal improvements while still holding their stockpiles. This trust built on not firing will cause a firm balance of peace. The balance of peace brought by the presence of two or more powerhouses has stopped most major wars. The fall of the aggressors has brought restoration of peace to the world again. The U.S. came out on top after WW II, because of the arrival of the nuclear bomb, but that place was challenged by USSR and its nuclear program. This established a balance of power. In the world there can be two maximum players striving for the top spot. If three or more exist, one the of countries, the U.S. or USSR, would try to persuade the third country to join their “team”. By having only one entity controlling the nuclear weapons, such as the U.N., then problems could arise. One, the countries deprived of the nuclear “prize”, in which they would try to get the “prize” back anyway they could: theft, illegal development, or black market. Another problem with nuclear weapons is when to use them. The U.N. is primarily a peace keeping organization. The thought of using a mass destruction weapon would come up only if another country had illegally come up with a nuclear weapon or a country threatened the entire world with their acts of war. Then weapons would sit and waste away, being a symbol for all the countries as a “forbidden fruit”. Having the U.N. as the sole authority for the weapons would subvert peace. Nothing would get done because the one country desperately trying to get the nuclear “prize” would undermine the whole idea of the U.N. and peacekeeping. The resentment brought by the lack of the “prize” would cause one of the nuclear “team” to go againist the ideas of the U.N. solely because they no longer have the nuclear weapons. As seen as a tool for peace, even though it is a weapon of mass destruction, the nuclear bomb can exist in the world peaceably. Once introduced into this world, the thought or theory can not be reversed. The thought of disarmament is ludicrous and totally unrealistic. The countries with the nuclear capabilities would never want to give it up, and if they did, one can be certain that they will keep some hidden from view or lie about the actual number of weapons. Bibliography:

Word Count: 950