Dialectical Reasoning Essay

The use of human soldiers to make peace is too great a risk, and not worth it. With such treacherous weapons as these, it is crucial that we make all the right decisions, but we must also give the world some credit and acknowledge the fact that people have learnt from their mistakes, like what happened in Japan, and nobody wants that to happen again. It is imperative that we have these arms because the technology is already out there and almost anyone can obtain them, Mutually Assured Destruction insures that as long as both sides have them then nobody will strike, and the risk of unman casualties is too great and not worth it.

If some other country was to obtain these weapons and we had none, we would be at their mercy. There are a lot of maniacs out there who have the ability to rise to power and gain support, Just like Hitler, Stalin, or Mussolini did. Once these kinds of leaders gain power, they can obtain nuclear weapons. Even though none of them did, they had the power to, and the only reason they didn’t is because they didn’t live in the nuclear age. However, we were still watching these leaders to make sure they weren’t making weapons of mass extraction.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

This proved to be a waste of time because they never did, but even while we were watching them, Hitler was still able to create more innovative and useful weapons that he introduced during World War Two. An example of this would be the German Howitzer artillery piece, or the IV Rocket that had the ability to change the course of the war, and was part of Hitler ‘s campaign of terror called Operation Penguin. 5 If Hitler could create this kind of horrifying weapon while we were watching, then somebody else could as well.

An example of this happening today is he erratic leader of North Korea, Kim Jung I-JNI. He has obtained a nuclear arsenal, and has been quoted by “Bloomberg Businesslike” as saying “if the U. S. Or Republic of Korea attacks us first, we will fight back”. 2 There is no way to prevent this happening again because nuclear technology is already out there and everybody knows that it exists. Even if we wanted to, there is no way to UN-invent something, so the only way to make these weapons obsolete is to have them ourselves. As long as both sides have them, leaders will not be tempted to use them.

The New York Times tastes that President Barrack Obama has made it policy to “not use nuclear weapons on non-nuclear states even if they were to attack the United States with biological or chemical weapons or even launched a crippling cyber-attack”. L The US would retaliate using a different means, and thus, making nuclear arms obsolete. This will limit the use of nukes, and they will only see action if it is absolutely necessary. This policy is cutting down the threat levels of a possible nuclear strike by either the United States, or another nuclear State; thus, making the likelihood of a nuclear winter, very slim.

Also, since the technology is available, and the US already has them, there is really no point in getting rid of them. Even if we were to sign contracts with other countries to get rid of nuclear arms, this kind of agreement can be broken. All it takes is one rogue leader to develop some of these without the world knowing. This technology already exists; therefore, it will always exist. It will always be a threat, there is no changing that. I’m not saying that I like these weapons of mass destruction, if we could get rid of them, I would want to.

However, it is not practical, and there is no way to do it. Although, we have signed agreements to limit the amount of weapons we can have, and to even stop advancing the technology on them, but that is Just about all we can do. One of these agreements is called the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. 3 Even though, these agreements can still be broken; the consequences will not be as severe, as long as we still have some of these weapons ourselves. No matter what happens in the future, technology for peace will always be the answer.

Mutually Assured Destruction is a “doctrine of military strategy and national security policy in which a full-scale use of nuclear paeans by two opposing sides would effectively result in the destruction of both the attacker and the defender. “4 Which basically means that if somebody decides to destroy another country with the use of nuclear weapons, then they will effectively destroy their own country in the process. This theory insures that as long as both sides have nuclear weapons, nobody will strike, as neither side wants to throw the world into a nuclear winter.

Having these arms in stockpiles may not be the best way to ensure safety, and lots of people don’t feel safe knowing they exist, but the reality of it is that without them, we would be in danger. We need to have these in order to make absolute sure that other nuclear states will not be tempted to put them into action. A leader who has any common sense will not want to be the first to use nuclear weapons, thus making them obsolete. This happened in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons and they both had reason to use them, but they didn’t.

Both sides wanted the upper hand, and they could have obtained this by using, or even threatening the use of these weapons, but neither sides wanted to risk a World War Three. Most people are not that stupid, the world has learnt from their mistakes and will not forget what happened in Japan. Nobody will choose to repeat this event. However, some may point out the fact that there may be a point in time where somebody with no common sense gains control of the weapons and decides he or she doesn’t care if they kill themselves and billions of other people.

This day may come, and the US military will do anything in their power to prevent this. By using a different means, such as traditional warfare like soldiers, planes, and tanks to prevent these kinds of people from gaining power. Although, they may not always be able to stop this from happening, but when the day comes, at least we won’t be left completely defenseless. Traditional warfare has always involved the risk of human casualties. These casualties are not a risk with nuclear weapons. People may say that we should get rid of nuclear weapons and solve our problems with traditional warfare.

However, that is not the answer. Human casualties are not worth the risk Just so we can intimidate another country with them, to get what we want. With nuclear weapons, we can intimidate each other, without this risk. Although, I’m not saying that is a good idea either, but it is an option. Also, others may bring up the fact that the target of these weapons are not soldiers, but civilians. I will not try to disprove that information, but I will instead remind them that as I am for the ownership of these weapons, I am still against the use of them.

The point I am trying to make in this essay is that we need these weapons to ensure that they never get used. So even though they are intended for use against civilian cities, I am almost positive that they will never be used as long as both sides possess them. With these weapons always at the ready, but with either side wanting to use them, there will come a day where there are no more wars. This day is not far off, as no country wants to risk a World War Three by attacking or even invading another country.

The only conflict in the world would be civil wars in third world countries, and terrorist attacks against governments or public places. Although, these events are still horrifying things to happen, but if there are no other conflicts happening in the world, then the more powerful and wealthier countries can come to their aid, and focus more time towards solving the issue. So, as oh can see, weapons such as these, are important if we are to live in a world with no more war. When this subject is openly discussed, it becomes clear that “technology for peace” is the answer.

We must possess nuclear weapons because we can’t stop others from getting them and becoming a threat. Mutually Assured Destruction states that both sides need to own them to avoid nuclear war. Finally, human casualties in traditional war are not acceptable and not worth it. Leaders deserve more credit than we give them, because even though many people don’t believe it, they have learnt their lesson from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are not idiotic enough to repeat such horrific events as those. I will not be suggesting a way to solve this issue, as there is nothing to solve.