Should Nations Have Weapons Of Mass Destruction

397 Words2 Pages
Should Nations Have Weapons Of Mass Destruction In my opinion no country should have nuclear weapons even the united stats. Yet countries are less likely to attack, or declare war on an opposing country if they have weapons of mass destruction. The only country to have used a nuclear weapon in war is the United States. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that ended world war 2. The fact is who do we trust to have weapons which can destroy the world. Countries like United States, and China yes. Countries like Iraq and Iran no. There are eight countries that have declared they possess weapons of mass destruction, and are known to have tested a nuclear weapon, only five of which are members of the NPT (Non- Proliferation Treaty). The eight include: People's Republic of China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, The United Kingdom, the United States of America, and North Korea. Israel is considered by most analysts to have nuclear weapons numbering in the low hundreds as well, neither denying nor confirming its nuclear status. Iran is suspected by western countries of seeking nuclear weapons, a claim that it denies. Counties have taken it into there own hands to make sure Weapons of this clabber don’t get into the wrong hands by using military force. For example the war in Iraq, started because the Bush administration thought to believe they hade weapons of mass destruction. Seven years and One-Hundred-Sixty-Six Billion dollars later was it worth it? It is if the country of that status had weapons that could kill the entire human race. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a landmark multilateral treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and
Open Document