argument top image

What are the positions on nuclear weapons? Show more Show less
Back to question

Nuclear weapons have been inciting fear, controversy, and awe since their creation. With the recent push to ban these weapons gaining popularity across the world, many new positions have sprung up as a response.

Nuclear weapons should be banned Show more Show less

Nuclear weapons are destructive and costly. There should be a worldwide push to prohibit the development, stockpiling, and testing of these weapons and eradicate them completely.
(1 of 3) Next position >

Nuclear weapons are inhumane

Nuclear Weapons destroy infrastructure, the environment, and lives indiscriminately. These weapons are inhumane to use at any point and would have catastrophic consequences if used in the modern world.

The Argument

Nuclear weapons kill indiscriminately. Although in 1949, the Geneva Convention made it clear that intentionally killing civilians is a war crime, many countries in NATO and in the UN continue to develop and stockpile nuclear weapons[1]. If a nuclear weapon is deployed, there are sure to be civilian casualties. It is estimated that around 150,000 people were killed in the Hiroshima bombing, and 75,000 people were killed in the Nagasaki bombing[2] . With the advancement of nuclear weapons since the 1940s, there’s truly no telling how many more civilians would die if another nuclear bomb was dropped. Apart from the obvious immediate destructive nature of nuclear weapons, there are also long-term catastrophic effects. A report by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) found that even a small nuclear exchange would result in a climate change so extreme that it would impact the environment of countries far from the explosion and cause a famine that could potentially affect over a billion people[3]. These inhumane and immoral consequences of nuclear weapons should be more than enough of a reason to stop all development and stockpiling of these weapons worldwide.

Counter arguments

Many believe that the use of nuclear weapons is humane. There are people that believe that deploying these nuclear weapons in World War II actually saved more lives than it ended. According to an article on "The Diplomat" it is estimated that if the US and allied forces had invaded Japan, the death toll would be many times greater than those who were killed in the bombs[4]. Many believe that this displays that using nuclear weapons was, in fact, the most humane way possible to end the war, and that therefore these weapons are humane.

Proponents

Premises

Rejecting the premises

References

  1. https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/war-crimes.shtml
  2. https://www.aasc.ucla.edu/cab/200708230009.html
  3. https://www.ipsnews.net/2013/02/most-inhumane-of-weapons/
  4. https://thediplomat.com/2014/08/how-hiroshima-and-nagasaki-saved-millions-of-lives/
This page was last edited on Monday, 19 Oct 2020 at 15:20 UTC

Explore related arguments