Nuclear Weapons In The World example essay topic

Why Can't We All Just Get Along? The concern of weapons of mass destruction is perhaps one of the largest growing issues in the world today. These weapons are a threat to everyone; actually, they are a threat to the existence of the world, and it is for this simple reason, why there is concern regarding this topic all over the globe". [The threat of weapons of mass destruction is] A Damocles sword poised on the neck of the human race, the magnitude of the threat they pose cannot be overstated" (Sid-Ahmed, 1). It is for this reason efforts are being made to ban the use of and / or destroy weapons of mass destruction all over the world. The question is, will the prohibition and destruction of weapons benefit the world or will it put us at a disadvantage?

If all nuclear weapons in the world were destroyed, the world would certainly benefit because the threat would be eliminated. America is making efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons all over the world. They have decided it is a good idea to go into other countries and "peacefully" force them to stop production of and destroy their nuclear weapons. The New York Times states, "Iraq has to get rid of its biological and chemical arms and missiles and the means to make them, and abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons" (NYT, 1). This of course sounds like a splendid idea because the less nuclear weapons we have, the less chance people have to use them, but then the United States goes on to give Iraq an ultimatum. "That [the destruction of the nuclear weapons] can be accomplished in one of two ways.

Iraq can make a full declaration of its weapons arsenal this weekend, and then work with the UN to destroy the arms. If it doesn't, the United States is likely to use military forces to disarm Iraq" (NYT, 1). While the intentions of the United States are noble enough, they are not going about getting results in the most intelligent manner because by "threatening" Iraq they seem as if their motives are not quite what they seem. It is almost a hypocritical concept because the United States says that they want to eliminate violence, but they are going about it by threatening other countries. The Tehran Times of Iran shows us how they view what the United States is trying to do.

The article "Global Hegemony: U.S. Fantasy says that " U.S. forces continue to pour into bases in the Persian Gulf under the false pretext of getting prepared to destroy weapons of mass destruction in Iraq" (Tehran Times, 1). While getting rid of nuclear weapons may be a valiant idea, it is creating much distrust in the world. The animosity that it is creating may, in fact make the world worse off because in our efforts to destroy nuclear weapons we have angered the countries which posses them. Iraq and Iran are very distrustful of the United States they believe; U.S. officials are definitely looking for any excuse to gain control over the area, and the ballyhoo over the danger of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is only a fabrication and should be regarded in the same context. Through the use of the scenario about non-existent Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, U.S. forces have been deployed throughout the region and now control all of the sensitive points (Tehran Times, 2). This, of course does seem slightly strange and they have every right to be concerned because they do not know the U.S. has good intentions.

This situation would be an argument against the destruction of nuclear weapons because it is only creating more tension in the world instead of eliminating it. Egypt also brings up a very interesting point regarding the destruction of nuclear weapons. They mention nuclear weapons are no longer only a possession of the superpowers of the world, but this is no longer the case. They really cannot see a good reason for banning nuclear weapons in countries that we know posses them because "global warfare has been waging a form of low-intensity warfare against the system, but this can all change given the ready availability of weapons of mass destruction which can now be purchased on the black market" (Al-Ahram, 1).

This small fact pretty much blows what the United States believes out of the water because by their elimination of Nuclear Weapons, they are rendering large countries utterly defenseless against terrorist attacks. There is a polarity in what the world should do regarding the issue of nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that nuclear weapons are a very real threat and the world would be a safer place without them. Although the reality of the situation tells a different tale.

It is a courageous effort on the part of the UN to try and rid the world of nuclear weapons, but today it may not be the smartest solution to the problem because in doing so they not only upset other countries, they also render them defenseless against terrorism. They assume no one else has the capabilities to create nuclear weapons, but what they fail to realize is most parties can create such things. If a country cannot create nuclear weapons, they are sure to find some on the black market. It would be nice to live in a world without troubles like nuclear weapons, but it doesn't seem to be realistically possible.

It is for these reasons that we question whether the elimination of nuclear weapons will benefit the world or put it at a disadvantage.

Bibliography

1. "Global Hegemony: US Fantasy". Tehran Times. 12/2/02 (web) 2. Sid-Ahmed, Mohamed. "Nukes are here to stay". Al Ahram Weekly (Egypt). 3/8/2000 (web) 3.
Decisive Days for Iraq". The New York Times. 12/5/2002 (web).