Why should nuclear weapons be abolished?
This would be impossible as the basic physics of the designs of fission bombs is well documented in the open literature. Any competent physics grad student could design a medium yield fission bomb that could be expected to work reliably without a test. Countries that want them only need about 4 years to construct the infrastructure to make the fissile materials to build them.
3 people found this useful
Yes we should to protect AMerica from Russia causing a nuclear war in which if we didn't have nuclear bombs we would lose and a Russian flag would hang over whats left of your… house. We SHOULD have nuclear bombs.
Hey guys who read up on this question. . Can I ask for some help with this question? . I am doing a debate in my high school class. And I am on the AFF (Affirmative side) Me…aning I'm on the side who agrees to get rid of nuclear weapons. . I have some points here I will share. I was wondering if anyone else would have some other thoughts? Ideas? That would assist me in this debate. . Points: . 1) Wasting the money on weapons research. ( STAT- Nuclear countries spend about $37 Million every second on developing nuclear programs.) When we could use all that money now to help out our decreasing economy. . 2) ( STAT - There is enough nuclear weapons to demolish the earth 7times over.) Why use a weapon if it destroys part of the earth we now live on. Plus the nuclear fall out would devastate other countries not affected by the current conflict. (If there was ever a conflict) . 3) Resources needed to make 1 nuclear weapon. Mining for Uranium, using up precious oil and natural gas to make weapons no really uses but for practice runs. Plus the resources needed to make 1 bomb is so radioactive, that if anyone person who tried to make one, would be endangering their own life. And if there was nothing to go wrong in the process the endangering of many other lives as well. . 4) Considering that what I've gathered from numerous websites, most people around the world are in fact against the use of nuclear weapons. So why have them at all when it causes so many problems just to make one and then to have one in your possession
Considering the fact that any competent Physics Grad student using publicly available data could design a workable fission bomb (getting the materials to build it is another… issue) having a yield comparable to the ones detonated in WW2; it is impossible to ban nuclear weapons . If a country wanted them it will take them roughly 4 years to build the nuclear materials processing infrastructure to make the needed materials.
I want one, if I could get certain restricted access materials I could design and build one. I expect my first attempt to be able to get a yield in the 20 to 40 kiloton range.… I have already designed a simple explosive lens assembly and verified it would correctly focus the shockwave on the tamper. Also I did a simple computerized neutron diffusion model to verify chainreaction multiplication factors, including losses. Still need to do computer hydrodynamics study and a few miscellaneous details. Scary isn't it how easy the design is! I have detonated numerous weapons, and am currently planning on using nuclear weapons in my quest for world domination
to protect yourself and threaten other countries
No, nuclear weapons should not be used.. As regards using nuclear weapons, from the film War Games , the computer, Joshua, said it quite succinctly. "The best strategy is no…t to play.". And if you were paying attention in Men In Black , J said to the bug, "If you don't start nothin', there won't be nothin'.". Early US strategy regarding nuclear weapons was one of mutually assured destruction where both sides (the US and Russia) blasted each other back to the stone age. As long as both sides kept their fingers off the trigger, we were all safe from nuclear holocaust.. Times have changed, and the only "real" nuclear threats come from violent radicals who are seeking the materials and technology to build a working bomb. They are doing it as you read this. It will happen. The only two questions are where and when .
That is a very, very good question. Their only use is mass destruction, and when I say mass destruction, I mean life as we know it being severely altered.
U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev came within a hair's breadth of agreeing to phase out their stockpiles of nuclear weapons. General Zhu Chen…ghu of China's National Defense University, made some remarks that stirred an unusual uproar in the West and in the United States in particular. According to reports in the Western media, Gen. Zhu, in responding to questions in a briefing session on China's foreign and security policy with a delegation of foreign journalists based in Hong Kong, seemed to indicate that in a possible military conflict with the United States over Taiwan, Beijing would be no match for the United States in terms of conventional capability. Zhu thus suggested that China should perhaps be the first to use nuclear weapons to deter a possible U.S. intervention. Today, the United States is the only nuclear power that continues to deploy nuclear weapons outside its own territory. The approximately 480 nuclear bombs in Europe are intended for use in accordance with NATO nuclear strike plans, the report asserts, against targets in Russia or countries in the Middle East such as Iran and Syria. Israel has not confirmed that it has nuclear weapons and officially maintains that it will not be the first country to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East. Yet the existence of Israeli nuclear weapons is a "public secret" by now due to the declassification of large numbers of formerly highly classified US government documents which show that the United States by 1975 was convinced that Israel had nuclear weapons But as the questions says, there should no be nuclear weapons.
Nothing good come from it OK. Imagine that you are sitting in your house and there is a nuclear war going on in your country and terrorist drop a maga11 bomb on you because yo…ur country has NUCLEAR Weapons you would be die. ^^^IGNORE^^^ think strategicly would u attack china knowing they could strike back with a Nuke they dont tell or show off the location of there nuke so there is no point in taking a guess. who ever answered this first is a bit dumb.
because canadians feel tha its a thraet
No one should have nuclear weapons! I agree they cause nothing but problems. All they do is grant people power to kill and strike fear in the world. There is nothing good that… can come from nuclear weapons.
No we shouldn't because without nuclear devices to protect the US from losing the Cold War, Russia will abliviate the US and North Korea would take advantage of this situation… and will attack South Korea causing another Korean War to break out. COmbat has evolved since WW2 and the Vietnam War. War has become more advanced, and the US has to keep up with Russia or before you know it you're dead or hiding in your basement to prevent harm from a nuclear bomb strike from hitting the United States. As I said, We have to keep nuclear weapons for the safety of America.
no, if we don't use it someone else will.
It can't be. It is natural and available. Someone will use it.
Because the nuclear weapons will not bring peace they will just bring more and more war and that will definitely not solve any problems.
You could try, but I believe actually doing so is impossible.
The International community as a whole and several key states in particular, must grapple with need to resolve the contradiction at the heart of the nuclear Non-Proliferation …Treatywhich some claim means nuclear energy is an inalienable right. Theinalienable right to nuclear energy is a historical and political mistake.