Fang 1

Elijah Fang

Ms. McKiddy

Pre-AP English 9/Per. 1

11 March 2016

The Use of Nuclear Weapons: Yes or No?

“I am become death, the destroyer of worlds”, the famous, grisly words uttered by J. Robert

Oppenheimer, the man who helped orchestrate the Manhattan Project and was the first man to

successfully detonate an atomic warhead. This quote perfectly encapsulates a creator who has

just realized the gravity of introducing their horrid invention into our world. Nuclear weapons

should not be used in any situation due to its environmental consequences, the cost of

production, and its inhumanity.

Nuclear warheads should not be authorized in any circumstance anymore because of the

consequences our Earth will face, which will eventually harm the human race. For example, in

the newspaper article, by Alan Robock and Owen Brian Toon, the authors state, “-smoke from

fires ignited by nuclear explosions would be so dense that it would block out the sun, turning the

earth cold, dark and dry, killing plants and preventing agriculture for at least a year” (Robock,

Toon 31). Think about it, an explosion which can reach temperatures as high as 300,000 degrees

Celsius, covering the sky with a dark foreboding mushroom cloud of radioactive dust and ash;

not so very eco-friendly if you ask me. Besides the complete annihilation and the long term

damage to the vicinity, the aftermath is arguably worse. The soil in the blast zone would virtually

be unusable for new plant life, preventing natural life and humans from using the soil for the

growth of new food. Not to mention the fact that the area would be heavily irradiated, which is
 Fang 2

absolutely dangerous to all forms of life. Radiation causes a plethora of diseases and side effects,

such as cancer and alterations to a lifeforms' very own DNA.

Secondly, the use of atomic weapons in a conventional war is way too costly. For example,

in the article, “Back to the Cold War on Nuclear Spending?”, the author states that $95 million

will be put into the construction of a nuclear facility, which will store and maintain weapons

(Pincus 13). First of all, where is that money going to come from? In order to receive financing

for these factories, the government would have to allocate more taxpayer money. I believe in a

strong military, but we have other things to worry about when it comes to defense, such as:

equipment, stronger and smarter technology which would provide our servicemen and

servicewomen a clear advantage when it comes to the battlefield, and compensation for our

soldiers. Focusing more money onto factories which produce and maintain nuclear explosives

should be on the bottom of the list of priorities. Another example, in the same article, Pincus

states, “President Obama’s budget for fiscal 2016 seeks $8.8 billion for the nuclear weapons

program run by the National Nuclear Security Administration” (Pincus 13). Disregarding the fact

that the US is nearly $20 trillion in debt, Obama is willing to add onto the problem by spending

more money on something that could create catastrophic scenarios for the human race. Wouldn’t

it be much better if the taxpayer’s money actually benefited them? The use of anything that is

nuclear is dangerous for the environment, and we, as a nation, should not be pitching money

towards anything that causes harm to our only planet Earth.

It is a known fact that the United States began stocking up nuclear warheads due to the

impending threat of Soviet Russia. More and more countries began arming themselves with

atomic weapons in order to feel a sense of security, hence people argue that each country should
 Fang 3

maintain their nuclear warhead just in case. But why though? Is it really worth causing negative

environmental effects and potentially destroying the planet over international disputes? Doesn’t

diplomacy exist? When Theodore Roosevelt talked with a ‘big stick’, he didn’t mean the

absolute annihilation of an opposing nation if a dispute occurs. As humans, we should always

resort to diplomacy unless it’s absolutely necessary (like World War Two).

Finally, the use of nuclear weapons should no longer be authorized because of the

inhumanity. Those who perished in the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been

considered lucky if they were put out of their misery, although suffering a morbid death. For

example, in the article, “Tokyo Admits Hiroshima Destroyed by Atomic Bomb”, written by

William F. Tyree, it states, “Most of the bodies found in the area of devastation were so badly

battered it was impossible to distinguish men from women” (Tyree n.pg.). Imagine the distress of

the families of those who were wiped out in the explosion, unable to bury their loved ones and

put them to rest, trying to imagine unimaginable levels of excruciating pain they experienced

once the warhead had detonated. Now, think about surviving the explosion, but developing

cancers and burns all over your body, transforming into a hideous lump of rotten meat, unable to

support yourself because the pain from the burns would cause pain beyond comprehension. Not

the nicest thing to imagine, but it’s the facts.

In the end, the use of nuclear weapons should no longer be authorized because the

environment would suffer greatly, the productions are way too costly, and the destructive power

of it is too inhumane. Anything nuclear is potentially dangerous to our environment