"Nuclear Weapons; We Should Ban Them!" This is a question we are often asked by those who want to see the end of International Terrorism. I was recently asked by an acquaintance what he thought about this. My response was that we should ban all weapons of mass destruction in the world, period. However, I went on to say that the problem with this is that the political leadership of some nations simply does not feel that it is their responsibility to protect the world and they believe that nuclear weapons are the answer to resolving conflicts.
In fact they actually sponsor terrorism, they deny that they are using nuclear weapons against their neighbors, and they have signed on to anti-trust agreements so that it is more convenient for them to sell nuclear weapons to rogue nations like North Korea. The United States of America and her allies are the only parties that currently possess nuclear weapons. And although North Korea now has its own nuclear arsenal, it is not yet a nation state, nor does it have the ability to strike the United States of America or our other enemies within our hemisphere.
Now then, why would anyone who opposes the use of nuclear weapons, even those who would ban them if they could, ban them? Well,written byis that they would love to have them. And another reason is because they have read somewhere or heard somewhere that it is good for them. I have no idea why anyone would read such nonsense, but it's out there.
There are two basic reasons people want nukes. One is because they believe it will protect them from their own nation's enemy, which is always a danger with nuclear weapons. The other reason is that they believe it would make them feel better about themselves. And I guess that could be true. Still, I would submit to you that there is a much bigger reason people have nuclear weapons, and that is for their own safety.
You see, we have hundreds of nuclear weapons pointed at us right now. And although the United States of America under the leadership of George W. Bush had made some mistakes in going into Iraq in the first place, he was very careful to avoid getting casualties himself, which is a very wise strategy. But, if we fail to prevent the use of these weapons, many of our friends and allies in the Middle East and Asia will. And therein lies the problem, as the use of nuclear weapons would bring total destruction to any nation, and would kill thousands upon thousands of civilians, mostly women and children. Therefore, those who object to the use of nuclear weapons should be very concerned indeed, and I would submit to you that banning them is a great idea indeed.
Those who support the continued use of nuclear weapons should get a little more serious about it. That means I should ask them why it is important to prevent the use of nuclear weapons if preventing the deaths of tens of thousands of people is acceptable. I would go as far as to say banning them is more important than preventing the deaths of one million starving children in Africa this year. Therefore, those opposed to the proliferation of nuclear weapons need to show some balance and I would submit to you that the world would be a much better place if people stopped using them.
Now then, there are two problems with banning nuclear weapons, as some have claimed. The first problem is the political will, or rather the lack of will. It appears that after the Cuban Missile Crisis, we had a change of heart, but the reason wasn't because the leaders of the nations in the region had decided that they didn't want nukes, it was rather because they didn't think it would be good for them to have nukes. Another example of this is Iran, although the leadership there has said publicly that they don't want nuclear weapons, yet the country itself has kept and continues to do business with the nation that sponsor terroristic groups. It also has ballistic missiles that it could fire into Israel and even into the United States.
The second problem is that once a nation gets the technology to make nuclear weapons, and we somehow get a man to steal a nuclear bomb from a country, there's no stopping them. The other problem is that once we start using these weapons we'll face some pretty severe backlash, possibly war, not only because of those who would be affected, but also future generations. This is one of the reasons I object to the whole notion that banning them would somehow prevent things like the rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iran and North Korea. In fact it makes more sense to put restrictions on transferring technology to these nations which means we wouldn't be opening up the door for them getting nukes.
