What invention would the world be better off without? Why?

0 / 5. 0

What invention would the world be better off without? Why?

Category: Article

Subcategory: Trigonometry

Level: High School

Pages: 2

Words: 550

Instructor’s name:
9 December 2015
Why the World Would be a Better Place withoutthe Invention of Nuclear Power and Arms
Every invention made around the world is to help make life easier in a certain way. Many inventions have a lot of positive impacts on the lives of everyday citizens around the world. One invention that the world would be way better without is the nuclear power. It only ‘favors’ the powerful governments who can afford them and use them to display their might. Nuclear power is an invention that the world would have been way better without. The paper herein presents arguments supporting the reasons why the world would be a better place to live in if nuclear weaponry did not exist in the history and the future of the world.
Since 1945, after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki using the atomic bomb named “little boy,” there has been many influential voices of alarm against the spread of nuclear weapons (Gardner par.2). Now that the nuclear weapons are available and life goes on around them, one can state for sure that the world would be a better place to live in without them. However, the extent of damage that they have been seen to cause would have probably been avoided had the nuclear weapons not been invented. Take the example of Hiroshima and Nagasaki; a 3 meter long and 75 centimeters large bomb destroyed property worth millions of dollars spanning miles away from the point of its detonation (Gardner par.7). The little boy also took with it, hundreds of thousands of lives in just a matter of minutes. Although the weapon aided the United States to win the war against Japan, the extent of its destruction was so vast that even the pilot of the American aircraft that had dropped it is recalled to have exclaimed. The pilot is recorded to have said, “Oh my God! What have we done” (Gardner par.8) The gains that the United States of America intended to achieve from the strike were way small compared to the destruction they cost. The bomb did not only affect the people and infrastructure present during the time of its detonation. Future generations were also affected as evidenced by the birth deformities caused by traces of the nuclear atoms that remained in the survivors’ bodies.
There are those who argue that the proliferation of nuclear weapons is a good thing as it might lead to peaceful resolution of conflicts as witnessed in the cold war. During the cold war, though the two powers had enough reasons to go to war, neither of them did. Expert analysts claim that it is because both of the powers were afraid of the consequences of the opponents nuclear weapons should they decide to go to war with them. Proponents of nuclear proliferation say that having the weapon in itself is a defense against attacks, one does not even need to use it. But Gardner(par.4) counters this argument stating that this state can be achieved even without the nuclear warheads.He argues that it is not the fear of what one has but what an enemy believes one to have that deters the enemy from attacking. Brilliant mind games and secure military information systems can, therefore, do the trick just as well too.
In conclusion, nuclear weapons are undeniably an advantage when it comes to military power. The extent of their might revealed itself in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. Nonetheless, this military might is overpowered several folds by the risks that the weapons pose to humanity. The nuclear weapons are already here now. Therefore, they cannot be un-invented. But had these power and arms not been discovered, life would surely have been better.
Works Cited
Gardner, David. “A World Without Nuclear Weapons?” EInternational Relations. 18 June 2010. Web. 9 Dec. 2015.