Science and Nuclear Weapons?

I'm doing a powerpoint presentation on nuclear weapons. I need to explain how science is helping or has the ability to help solve the problem of nuclear weapons? The question is "Should we get rid of nuclear weapons". Help will be appreciated.

2 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    Oh, please, that guy is so full of it! Clearly, it's opinion. I've been studying things like this my whole life, and I continue to work in the field.

    *Should we get rid of them?* Absolutely! Everyone should get rid of them! The world would be better off without nuclear weapons.

    We, the United States, are not paranoid. The Chinese and Russian -- two countries that DON'T LIKE US, have nuclear weapons. It is MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) that in part kept the world from blowing cities to bits. You kill me, I kill you, problem solved. Yes, we are the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons in anger. But consider this, because it's an irony -- the use of those two weapons saved tens of thousands of more lives than if we hadn't used them. If we hadn't used them, either (1) the US naval blockade would have starved millions of people to death, because the Japanese would never have surrendered, or (2) the US and any allies would have had to conduct an amphibious operation and wipe the islands from end to end. Considering that the people of Japan were taught to fight and die when people told them to, this would have meant killing not just volunteer and conscript soldiers, but also men, women, children... that's just the way it would have been. MILLIONS of lives lost, a terrible tragedy to both sides. By using the two nuclear weapons and demonstrating that we had the capacity to completely destroy them at our whim without loss to ourselves (of course, it was a bit of a bluff, since we only had the two bombs at the time...), even they had to concede defeat. If someone is killing you, does it somehow make it wrong to use a better weapon to kill him and end a war faster? I don't even understand that complaint.

    Now, onto the United States' nuclear arsenal. Our stockpile is not "rusting away." We spend billions of dollars every year to keep up the efficacy of our warheads. We have the money to do it, and we do do it, because it keeps us on top. The Russians, on the other hand, to not have the money for upkeep -- which is one reason why they continue to allow us to buy their warheads, which we turn into fuel for civilian nuclear reactors. They have fewer weapons but more money, we have less money, but fewer weapons to deal with a cheap fuel. It's a win-win situation. As for getting slammed ourselves by someone who wished us ill... I'm not going to say that it's impossible, just unlikely. Despite what idiots will tell you to the contrary, we have two kinetic energy interceptor hit-to-kill systems *proven* to work over many tests and different test scenarios. A naval system and a land based missile system. We also have two directed-energy weapons, high-power lasers that also are proven to work. Just ask the Israelis -- we gave them a toned-down version that they use every single day to shoot down 5" diameter rockets fired from Lebanon.

    Finally, the world would not become a radioactive hellhole. Estimates of contamination were shown to be really off, because people have been living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki for decades, without any cancers or birth defects or anything else that could be attributed to radioactivity. In fact, you can walk there yourself with a Geiger counter and measure it.

    Now, getting to your question... yes, we should get rid of nuclear weapons. There is no need for them anymore. They're a Cold War relic, when we needed the ability to smash a huge area (like a city or military base) all at once. This is no longer necessary. With modern accuracy, you can accomplish the the same thing with a couple of well-placed 2,000 lb bombs. But the *science* of getting red of the weapons is like I said -- we're buying Russian warheads and turning them into fuel for peaceful purposes (because it can't be reprocessed into weapons-grade material or even military-reactor grade fuel).

    Source(s): Engineering geologist, technologist, historian, also contracts at Barking Sands, Kauai. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/business/energy-... http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Wpngal...
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    We "should" get rid of them world-wide, but the US is paranoid. They are the "only country" that has used the warhead in war. Against a country that did not have that technology.

    The nuclear weapons the US has is sitting there rusting away. They cannot use them. Not against Russia or China or countries allied to those countries without getting a taste of their own destruction. M.A.D.D. is there in place to keep everyone in check. You shoot missiles at us "assures that automatically missiles will be landing on your shores as well.

    And Russia has as much nuclear force as the US. China is the unknown(but an intelligent guess would assume the same applies)

    So; if that kind of attack happens, you will have enough time to kiss your butt goodbye, for the planet will become radioactive=not fit to live in.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.