International Policies on Weapons and Subsequent Effects on the Vulnerability of the Society - Essay Sample

Introduction

Different world governments have adopted different types of weapon use policies. For Nuclear Weapons, they have the potentials of wiping out a particular geographical location in addition to every living thing within the location. For example, in the year 1945, 6th November, Hiroshima a city in Japan was bombed by a USA Bomber (B-29 Bomber) that resulted to the deaths of approximately 140, 000 persons (Gilpin, 2015). In this regard and other similar instances, should there be numerous Nuclear Weapons tests and should they be included in wars? Nuclear Weapons are widely linked with the desolation of people and wreckage of resources, for example, destruction of Hiroshima that resulted in deaths. This paper, therefore, forwards the persuasion that Nuclear Weapons should not be used or regularly tested whatsoever. This is because the possession of Nuclear Weapons by a particular county has numerous risks that can impact diverse yet devastating effects on the environment. While some people including authors, politicians, religious leaders consider that by attempting, threatening or using Nuclear Weapons could be a potential method of preventing the arouse of third world wars or fights between countries, this is not accurate.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Many people globally, fears Nuclear weapons because of the devastating effects linked to their consumption. For some countries such as the United States, Nuclear Weapons is perceived as a narcissistic stand-point, this implies that the USA believes it can rescind the whole planet with just a click of a button. In this respect, the fact that many countries globally are hungry of power domination is dangerous and should be stopped (Perkorich, 2017). There are numerous risks associated with the use of Nuclear Weapons. The weapons reek and are sources of radiation. As explained by Perkorich (2017), the entire Nuclear Weapon industry produces an immeasurable amount of radiation, mainly of low levels. With such emissions, people and the environment at large can be potentially damaged. Russet (2015) says that the radioactive emissions from the Nuclear Weapons can pigskin in diverse materials including machinery, tools, and clothing that employees within the Nuclear Weapons industries wear and uses in generating the weapons. Subsequently, the exposure to these dangerous radiations can result in cancers or disabilities, and these effects may run over many generations to come (Russet, 2015). Also, for the radiations emanated from the tests of Nuclear Weapons, they could accidentally result in massive fires that obviously would destroy land and properties or even cause deaths of many people. For the sites used to test the Nuclear Weapons, the environment in these areas has been widely devastated; this destroys land and natural habitat for some animals (Gilpin, 2015).

The other reason why Nuclear Weapons should not be used or tested for whatever reason is the increased costs of manufacturing the weapons. The price is insane and could potentially go up to $50 million. In this way, the economy of a country can be significantly affected resulting in augmentation of political pressures within a country (Bell and Miller, 2015). Perkorich (2017) explains that in a circumstance where there are heightened political atmospheres within a country, then, the resultant effect is that foreign investors are scared away, and this could cripple the economy. Additionally, if a country is angered or purposes to reduce "power" competition and relevance in the globe, Nuclear Weapons can potentially be used to actualize this purposes. For example, the heightened threats between the USA and Southern Korea are such critical that South Koreans were almost failing to participate in Winter sports competition (Sechser and Fuhrmann, 2017).

While the Nuclear Weapons are perceived to be one of the paramount discoveries in history particularly regarding how such weapons could shield a country from attacks, it does not make a lot of sense for some countries such as the USA and Russia possessing about 90% of the weapons. While Bell and Miller (2015) argue that the sole reason why a country should possess Nuclear Weapons is for purposes of obstructing the Soviet Union from using their Weapons on people (purposes of the cold war), the future processing of these weapons should be stopped forthwith. Primarily based on the potential effects of the weapons in addition to that these countries possessing the weapons only do it for paranoia and dominance reasons. Therefore, possessing and use of Nuclear Weapons should not be based on cold war. Contemporary, the most effective form of intimidation between countries is the use of weapons; it is for this reasons that countries such as Russia and USA use weapons as a threat to each other. For example, between North Korea and America during Obama's period, Kim-Jong Un had threatened to use annex South Korea. However, the Obama's administration threatened North Korea with Nuclear Weapons whereby North Korea retaliated having seen that a significant diplomatic concern had quashed their intimidation on South Korea (Russet, 2015).

Kfir (2015) discusses that the inflow of refugees to other countries has increased the number of voluntary acts for vital activities such as rescue from floods, food aid distributions, etc. As a result, the host response of the host countries towards unexpected calamities such as flood and fire outbreaks have increased hence saving lives. However, due to their voluntary efforts, some of these refugees have secured jobs in most of the countries where their services were deeply felt, for example, Germany and Turkey. As such, the compatriots have not taken their employment lead to displacement of the native country workers who were formally employed into the specific sectors but lacked adequate skills and knowledge in the management of those sectors, this displacement pattern lightly to the extent of demanding the return of the expatriates to their native homes.

The effect to this sector by the wars is hypothetically abstruse. For example, as a result of the wars, some remnants furthered to Turkey to seek employment. In Turkey, both the informal and formal workers combine for output production in a particular sector of specialization. Therefore, this has influenced the lower wages in the informal sector due to the remnant's substitution with the Turkish laborers (Kfir, 2015).

This has also lowered the production costs of the majority industries in Turkey due to the provision of cheap labor from the refugees. The money saved from the low cost of production is pooled back to the industries and invested in creating more job opportunities. Therefore, the Middle East wars despite its devastating effects have led to a corresponding increment in the number of formal employees in Turkey. The majority of these workers had not completed their high school education levels but have gained experience over their working period.

Finally, we need to engage in a moral discussion and evaluate the cogency of Atomic Bombs. For example, if leaders believe that is appropriate to use Nuclear Weapons to engage other countries in cold wars, then, is it wrong if the citizens within that country use the same weapons but on an insignificant scale consumption? In the initialization stages of Atomic Bomb use, the Nuclear Weapons were mainly used to protect lives. For example, if Hiroshima could not have been bombed, then, the Japanese's would not have surrendered, and the war could have salted a little bit longer, however, as a result of the Nuclear bombing, the war ended straightway. On the contrary, Gilpin (2015) says that Nuclear Weapons today are not used for purposes of saving lives but with the intents of mass killings. Therefore, even if the weapons have not been recently or contemporary being used, the particular countries owning these resources could potentially inflict enormous amounts of pain in a country by emancipating the weapons.

I believe that government institutions should not regulate or interfere with science.

The primary reason why government agencies should not interfere with science is that the majority of corporations are the primary abusers of scientific research. These corporations mainly pursue to make more profits while minimizing loses. However, if corporate funding of research is eliminated, a majority of the ongoing research projects would be eliminated and not completed. Therefore, if governments regulate science, societal advancement would be hindered; instead corporate sponsorship of scientific research should not be driven by monetary gains.

International policies on weapon purposes to evaluate and discover what truth is there within our environment and nature at large. As such, if government constricts research through regulations, it means that the truth cannot be explored thus averting the expedition for the fact.

International policies on weapon are an excellent tool in reducing ignorance and illiteracy from the society. Traditionally, everything was attributed to a god, for instance, the Sun was worshipped in various traditional societies centuries ago as a type of a deity. However, in recent ages, science has wiped away such ignorance and explained to the society that the Sun is not a god. In this regard, regulating science would only imply that the government purposes to induce ignorance within the society. These policies have been attributed to various causes of wars. Despite the significant contributions of science, there are numerous incidences of war that science has been inhumanly used. For instance, use of biochemical weapons in fights. In this case, should governments allow science to develop without limitations, many people could potentially lose their lives (Bell and Miller, 2015). Based on the arguments, circumstances, and facts that this debate has provided, I do not support any form of government regulation in science.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as a globe, we must rethink of the potential effects and consequences that Nuclear Weapons could cause if were used to showcase a country's might and power. Also, countries possessing these weapons must be forced to destroy and reduce them as there may be cases where psychopaths are leaders, and no one knows what these leaders could potentially do if they get access to such weapons. For example, President Assad of Syria has on numerous occasions publicly said that he would destroy Israel as a nation. Also, Assad is a president who has resulted to the death of many people through Chemical tests. Such leaders can destroy the world through the Nuclear Weapons and therefore, the use of Nuclear Weapons should be proscribed

References

Bell, M. S., & Miller, N. L. (2015). Questioning the effect of nuclear weapons on conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 59(1), 74-92.

Gilpin, R. (2015). American scientists and nuclear weapons policy. Princeton University Press.

Perkovich, G. (2017). Abolishing nuclear weapons. Routledge.

Russett, B. M. (2015). Ethical dilemmas of nuclear deterrence. In Bruce M. Russett: Pioneer in the Scientific and Normative Study of War, Peace, and Policy (pp. 153-168). Springer, Cham.

Sechser, T. S., & Fuhrmann, M. (2017). Nuclear Weapons and Coercive Diplomacy. Cambridge University Press.