Add your Option 4 as a comment on this blog entry. Also remember to COMMENT ON 2 OTHER ENTRIES as those will count as credit towards the overall assignment. Lets keep this most important discussion continuing on Nuclear Nonproliferation!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
67 comments:
Option 4-Nuclear Nonproliferation
I authoratatively believe that all nuclear weapons should be abolished. By abolishing them our world will be better equipped. We will not have to worry in living in fear of deteration and no more horrible casues from the attacks. Many of the countries who decide to use anything affiliated with nuclear activity, they do not seem to realize how much money they are wasting. It costs billions of dollars to have these weapons. Even though Nuclear weapons have done great things in protecting the United Stares, we still need to realize that all it does is cause majoe DAMAGE! Overall all Nuclear Weapons should not be prohibited because the causes and affects leading to mass DESTRUCTION!
Samantha L.
Period 0
Option 4-Nuclear Proliferation
I strongly think that all nuclear weapons should be kept. These nuclear weapons have offered the ultimate protection for the United States. In a country, control is vital to the country. Without nuclear weapons, a fear that we would be decimated by a nuclear attack would spread. Chaos would emerge and the United States would be crushed by rogue states, other countries and terrorist groups. However, with nuclear weapons at the United State's side, the people's protection is ensured. Also, many argue that keeping nuclear weapons costs a lot keeping these nuclear weapons. However, should the United States be barraged by multiple nuclear weapons, it would cost many times more than keeping the weapons. Also, people believe that nuclear weapons are dangerous. Nuclear weapons are inevitably dangerous, however, even if all the countries were to give up all nuclear weapons, terrorist groups and rogue states may manufacture and use them against us. If we had given up ours, death would be rained on us and this country would cease to exist. They are dangerous, however, they are the key to survival for this country.
Matthew Tran
Period 3
In the grand scheme of things, earth is just a dot. We're just a pixel in the grand picture of the galaxy. We are so small, but we let ourselves feel big by thinking we have all the power.
One way we feel powerful is putting people below us. Making ourselves feel on top. A wonderful and terrifying way to do this is with nukes. Lovely little divices, the surrounding area is completely radioactive and anyone who enteres the vicinity is blessed with cancer. Nothing good can possibly be accomplished by war. Only domination.
But then again, how in the world could you unite everyone? Is this our grand destiny? To do nothing but fight and blow eachother up? I certainly hope not. Because what happens is one person drops a nuke. woops, there goes Russia. Russia's allies attack them, blowing them up. Nucelear war erupts.
10 years later the remainder of the human race is living on Austrailia, the only remaining country that isn't completely radioactive. So we'll be cuddling with jiant spiders, scorpions and koala bears while the rest of earth rots and we depleat Austrailia of its recources until we all die out.
THAT is what nukes offer. Destruction. Nothing. Death. No future.
So a vote to keep nukes is a vote to destroy the planet. Because, one bomb can cause SO much damage. Even if you weren't even near the explosion and you go there, you get cancer. The soil is unusable. Babies are born with extra legs, arms, fingers, disfigurement, or they just die.
So thanks for that nuke. You gave us a grand old time here in Hiroshima with radioactivity. Gee, look, my child has an extra arm! how HANDY HAHA GET IT!?
And all the wile the ozone layer is rotting and global warming is creeping up on us, but we don't care. China was mean, we MUST blow them up. WOOPS, another gaping hole in the ozone layer. but whatever, at least China is gone. So spend all the money on nukes and leave earth to rot. lovely.
The ONLY possibility to save ourselves, everything we hold dear, is to STOP. And look. Look up from your little dramas and say, wow. We missed that one big time. I'd really love to talk to the whole united nations and tell them this. Tell them, Wow. You guys messed up. Look what your leaving for the next generation. A mess.
We have to stop proliferating nukes. there is no other OPTION. This is the ONLY option.
If you want to live, that is.
--Allison W.
Period 0
Hey sam and Matt, thats really funny, you guys are opposite.
Sorry Matt, i REALLY don't agree with you. Read mine, you'll see why.
Sam, great points. i agree. nicely worded
Allison Walters
Period zero
I think that nuclear weapons should come to stop because it's doing no good for os or to the world. It will just cause damage and that's not what we want because if we bomb a country, they will just seem to want to get us back. This will keep going and going and soon it will do really bad damage; innocent people get killed, the land will get ruined, etc. I agree that nuclear weapons has helped our country in certain ways and that it'll protect us. But it will cause destruction and that's certainly not what we want.
Michelle Luo
Period 0
Comment on Samantha Lopez:
I totally agree with your perspective of this situation. Great point!
Comment on Matthew Tran:
I agree that nuclear weapons has protected the US, but it causes damage in many ways.
Michelle Luo
Period 0
Samantha L:A little misspelled words here and there but I hear ya. Though I'd say I have to disagree. As I said in my entree, repairing the aftermath of a nuclear explosion costs much more than keeping the nuclear weapons.
Allison W:Just to set this straight, just 1 nuclear bomb can't destroy China or Russia in one blow. Maybe one city, but not one country. Also, if we clear our nuclear weapons then the effects you said in your entree will happen in the U.S. Unless you want you baby to have an extra arm or leg... you'll agree with me.
Matthew Tran
Period 3
Comment on Alison W.- Great job on what was said i believe what caught my attention is when you pacifically stated, "The ONLY possibility to save ourselves, everything we hold dear, is to STOP. And look. Look up from your little dramas and say, wow." I would have to say i definately agree with the only possible way to save ourselves is to completely STOP! Great Job =]
Comment on Matthew T.- Yes Nuclear weapons do protect our country but you also have to consider that keeping them is quite dangerous and will probably cause more WAR and DESTRUCTION!
Samantha L.
Period 0
Option 4: What Should We Do?
I think that we need to abolish nuclear weapons as soon as possible, because all they do is harm our environment and threaten the safety of our planet. When the U.S. bombed Hiroshima, they did not know the full effects of a nuclear weapon, but they soon found out. The people who were directly effected by the bomb just evaporated, with only their silhouettes remaining. The people that were farther away suffered from the radiation, and got cancer, causing them to die a slow and painful death. Even years after the attack, children in Japan were born with deformities, and the soil was still radioactive. Since the Japanese couldn’t grow food, their population decreased and the country began a decline. As you can see, this one act of pure revenge caused a country to perish and its people to suffer for the decision of their military and government. I think that if we do abolish nuclear weapons, we will be safe from a repetition of this horrific event, and preserve the safety of Earth. I understand that it can be expensive to get rid of nuclear weapons, it will be money well spent in order to ensure preservation. I hope that you understand how harmful nuclear weapons are, and how harmful they can be to us.
Aditi S.
Per. 0
Option 4
I think that we should in fact get rid of all the nuclear weapons in the world. But getting rid of them slowly will only cost even more money. So, I have devised a plan. Evey country signs the WHI (We Hate Iraq) treaty. Then when everyone has finally signed the treaty, them we all launch our nukes at Iraq. This is a good idea for three reasons, number one, instead of wasting money and time on slowly taking about our nuclear weapons, we should get rid of them all and once. Secondly we would be able to pull our troops out of Iraq and we would still win. Thirdly, all the nuclear weapons would be gone and the construction of more weapons would be a declaration of War against the world.
Joey K
Per. 0
Comment on Sam B:
i agree completly with your resolution, i feel that nuclear weapons should be abolished and we are wasting millions of dollars on the nuclear weapons we arent even using.
Comment on Aditi S:
i also agree with your resolution stating that it is very harmful to our enviornment.
Taylor O.
Per. 3
I strongly feel that nuclear weapons should be abolished at all costs neccesary. I feel that the world would be a much safer place knowing that no one has them, and countries who never had them will not feel threatened any more. I believe that by riding all nuclear weapons, we would be saving millions of dollars that could be sent to many other issues instead of wasting the money on nuclear weapons, which we dont even use. I decare that every nation should sign the RNW, Rid Nuclear Wearpons treaty to ensure that they are all gone as soon as possible so we can make the world much safer from possible nuclear attacks.
Taylor O.
Per. 3
Option 4
We as humans always think of a way to make ourselves superior then others and ways to kill each other. Is this what we have come to as a society? Savages? Nuclear weapons only bring us more destruction then safety. For those people who believe that nuclear weapons "protect us” they are mistaken they really don’t know the harm they are doing to themselves and to our own planet. What we cause to ourselves is to have cancer, have skin burned off, or just die a painful death and to our; earth we contribute to global warming and closer destruction to it. We say we rather have the ability to attack before we are attacked this is how barbaric we are. With our "protection" we have changed the lives forever of those who were affected by the atomic bomb in Japan.
Unless we understand globally the damage we are doing to ourselves we are going to cause our own destruction. Sadly with the way we solve our problems we are all going to end up dead or trying to kill each other till the end. Until we learn violence is not a way to solve we will never progress as people.
michelle S.
Period0
For sixty years, the threat of nuclear weapons has been hanging just barely over our heads, ever so close to total anihilation. True they have only been used twice, but those two times ended one world war, killing hundreds of thousands of people. A full scale globalthermonuclear war is completely conceivable at this point, and we all know exactly what would come of that war. I know that most people do not want to spend their lives underground due to a nuclear winter, but if we have the temptation just waiting to be used, there is nothing stopping the government from launching a nuclear bomb. I feel that it is totally necessary to get rid of our nuclear weapon supply, but it is a little far-fetched with so many countries that would refuse to give up thier own weapons. People feel the need to be superior over others, and that superiority gives people a feeling of false security. We need to make other countries see that if all nuclear weapons would be obliterated, there would be no need to have weapons for security, simply because there would be nothing that we need to be secured from. It will be hard, but as soon as everyone realizes that fact, then getting rid of them will be a pinch. The world needs to see that violence never solves any problems; it only creates them.
Moira C.
Per. 3
Comment on Taylor O:
I really like the idea of the treaty, but there should be some sort of guarantee that the nations would sign it and keep to it, because it is so easy to turn around and declare that it was never really meant.
Rid Nuclear Wearpons treaty? JK.
Comment on Joey K:
What the heck are you thinking?!?! That treaty would never pass simply because it is stupid to cause war to make peace!! And what about the innocent people in Iraq who really have no clue? Will you just kill all of those people too? That kind of treaty is non-realistic and would never pass in a real-life situation.
Moira C.
Per. 3
Comment on
I firmly believe that we should keep all of our nuclear weapons. It is the only way to remain at the top of the food chain. Our nuclear weapons have kept us safe for 60 years and we cannot afford to give them up now, for we are on many hit lists. Terrorists are often lacking reason to follow our example if we were to give up pur nukes. In a perfect world, other countries would hand over their nuclear weapons alongside us, but in our world, they would see us as an open target. We would be like chum in a shark tank. If we were to give away our nuclear weapons, we would be putting all of our citizens at risk. If we keep our nuclear weapons, it wouldnt be like we would use our weapons all the time, only in conditions of emergency. If we were attacked by nuclear weapons, there would be no way to fight back if we didnt have our own. Our troops would do little damage compared to the damage that was done against us, and on top of that our troops would die. We should keep all of our nukes. BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY!!
Gabby Reta
period 3
Comment on Matthew: I totally agree with you we need our nukes to keep us safe!
Comment on Allison: Our nuclear weapons would save us all from attacks by other countries. And by the way i think your entry is a little on the short side ;) just kidding
Gabby R
"I know not what World War III will be fought with but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones."-- Albert Einstein
Nuclear weapons are a great threat that we don't need to have. They only lead to fear and destruction. If we don't get rid of them, the consequences are unfortunate for us as well as other countries. Creating nuclear weapons is a mistake but we can fix it by getting rid of them. unfortunately, many people are stuck on the idea that we need them and that other people like terrorist can attack if we get rid of them, but why not take that risk? It is a possibility NOT a certainty. if deterrence is the reason why people haven't attacked the US then if no one had nuclear weapons their is no problem and no reason to attack. On the other hand our destruction if a nuclear war were to occur is a CERTAINTY. maybe it won't be instant extinction but it will be a slow death. Look at Japan and evaluate that situation: Would you like that in the US? or in other countries where the government has made mistake and not the innocent people?
There is no care for the environment or for human kind. In a scale between money, power, and greed altogether versus the Earth, are they equal? NO if their is no earth then nothing else matters!
Lizzbeth Melendez
Period 0
i am pretty much in the middle. i think we should keep nuclear weapons JUST for protection. i hoping that we wont use them at all. i think that ALL countries should reduce their weapons to a minimun amount but in reality, not all countries will do that. i think we should keep them JUST for protection because the last time we used them, we killed more people than they killed us. what i would really want is to have no nuclear weapons at all but i know that will never happen unless we inforce it. i do hope that we would be be in a position where we have to bomd another country.
-jenny M
per 0
comment on sam L.
i totally agree with you sam. i think that we should abolish nuclear weapons and not have to live in fear.
comment on joey k.
interesting idea joey. i think its a good idea that we should sign a treaty to get rid of nuclear weapons nbut not in Iraq. a lot of innocent people will die.
-jenny m.
per 0
Option 4
As the world knows, the outlook on Nuclear Warheads have the opportunity to destroy an entire city. Using money to risk the lives of yourselves and many people should not be necessary. Even if these destruction of life has been protecting us for years, it will not be long until there will be chaos. Competitive countries like North Korea, who are willing to produce Nuclear Warheads to become more powerful can be danger to the whole world. By using the UN treaties that would encourage countries to reduce their nuclear warheads, stop manufacturing, stop trading, and stop them forever. If treaties do not provide the solution that we plan, then we must take things into serious cause. Countries that do not want to obey our rules must be punished. The economic is as bad as it is, so losing communication to that country and bombing it would be done. It is better to save billions of people than saving millions.
Hanson Oh
P. 0
Option# 4
Nukes need to stay. Our nukes have protected us in the past and they will protect us in the future. Nobody can actually predict the future, but if a war happens then we can win it by our nukes. If aliens attack we will blow them up by our nukes. If there are zombies we have to nuke them to stop the infection. We need nukes because it is eccential to our defence.
Go Nukes!
-Anuj P.
per.0
Comments
Comment on Alison W.-
I agree with your thoughs on the harmfulness of nukes, but they need to stay.
GO NUKES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
also the hand joke was not funny.
Comment on Joey k.-
I dont agree with you because you are very hateful to Iraq and what is the terrorists move to a neighbor country and hide thier, then all of iraq will be blown up for no purpose. bad idea.
Navraj Kaler
Period 0
I think we should keep nuclear weapons. Nuclear Weapons have protected us for over 60 years from the Soviet Union. The USA is a global power because of nuclear weapons. We need to keep nuclear weapons because they protect us from threats like the Islamic militant groups. In the future, there will be a country as powerful as the USA, or as powerful as the Soviet Union were, and we need to protect ourselves from those future threats. If we get rid of Nuclear Weapons, there will be a country that will make nuclear weapons again. And we cant afford that, so we should just keep nuclear weapons.
I believe that nuclear power should be reduced, little by little, with all coutries participating. I believe that all countries should have an equal amount of nuclear power first off. That way, no country feels threaten that one country would have more power than the other.
I also think nuclear power will destroy the world. As Einstien said the fourth world war will be fought with sticks and stones. Nuclear power will kill everyone someday. This will happen because nuclear bombs cause radiation which will affect everyone, everywhere. The world needs to pay attention to what happeneed in Japan and care.
Personally, I think that the countries that support nuclear power does not care about anyone else except themselves, the leaders of the countries. Why else would they put their own people in danger?
Caylee C.
Period 0
Comment on Michelle L.-
I totally agree with you about how bad nuclear weapons are, and that many innocent people will be killed for no reason.
Comment on Michelle S.-
I agree with you that nuclear weapons bring more destruction than safety, and that we need to understand globally to abolish these weapons.
Aditi S.
per. 0
i strongly believe nuclear weapons should be abolished. We are just causing damamge to our planet, the place were we live in. I know that other countries will secretly make nuclear weapons like they already are, we would force them to give away their weapons and will be hiden were no ne will see them and will have the temptation to steal them. Nuclear are good for protection but at the same time they destroy our environment
Countries need to understand the harm nuclear weapons are doing to our world and they to think cridically and realize that nuclear weapons are bad and should be abolished!
Joyce M. ☺
Per.0
i strongly believe nuclear weapons should be abolished. We are just causing damamge to our planet, the place were we live in. I know that other countries will secretly make nuclear weapons like they already are, we would force them to give away their weapons and will be hiden were no ne will see them and will have the temptation to steal them. Nuclear are good for protection but at the same time they destroy our environment
Countries need to understand the harm nuclear weapons are doing to our world and they to think cridically and realize that nuclear weapons are bad and should be abolished!
Joyce M. ☺
Per.0
Comment on Sam: You have really good points and a totally agree with you
Comment on Allison: I also liked your facts and agree with you
Joyce M. =]
Per.0
Are nuclear weapons really that bad? Yeah? Then how do you explain our top national security? Nuclear weapons have secured the American people for over half a century, and has not failed us at all yet.
Nuclear weapons have only been used twice against the country of Japan in World War II. Of course, after the explosions, the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki there was side effects in the cities environments. But think about, what about the men and women of Pear Harbor. Have you foregetten their crying souls? Is that still enough... no? Newly elect President Trubman knew that without launching a nuclear weapon, millions would die in every major attack the two enemies lauched.
The Cold War was probably the scariest time in American lives. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons , and could have ended the world, but it didn't. The Soviet Union lost the war because they had no citizen support to their national army. We won because we had more support than the Soviet Union
Not only does nuclear weapons protect us, but nuclear can be used as an energy. Most of Europe has energy fueled transportations, which the US lacks to this very moment. Nuclear energy was once a feared energy because there was no clothing at the time to withstand radium, but we have those clothes.
Overall, nuclear weapons and energy are future for the United States.
Gustavo Romero
Period 0
I believe that nuclear weapons should not be used at all. They ruin a countires soil, water and crops. THey kill many people. Also we are damageing our plant, and its not like we have a back-up earth, everytime we ruin our current one. We believe that the UN should hold an convetion and sign a peace treaty against nuclear weapons.
Parth Jani
P0
Option 4-What I Believe
I believe that nuclear weapons should be completely eliminated. Yes, a country has the right to protect themselves, but there are ways to defend your country that do not involve so much destruction. The damage caused by a nuclear blast is exponential, and many people's lifes are either taken or changed forever. An entire city can be wiped out in the blink of an eye. This is harmful not just to the area where the blast occured, but to the entire world. We should start to reduce the number of weapons worldwide, eventually leading to the complete abolishment of all nuclear weapons. It will be expensive to lower the amount of weapons. However, it is also costly to keep nuclear weapons. The cost of the millions of lifes affected is worth more than the money we spend.
Courtney B.
Period 0
Comment on Courtney B.- I agree with you. A person's life is worth more than weapons of mass destruction, and we need to do something to protect it from a nuclear devastation.
Comment on Gus R.- NO i haven't haven't forgotten Pearl harbor but those were soldiers that were willing to give their life for the country, and what the US did to Japan was completely different in the sense that we bombed innocent people that might not have agreed with the actions their government had taken. Moreover, the fact that this country's citizens supported the choice of using nuclear power against the Soviet Union shows that we willing to take the risk of them attacking us and creating a catastrophe. It is difficult for me to understand this. We are all humans and we need to help each other out, we need to create peace and set an example for others.
Liz M.
Period 0
Ym opion on how we should solve the issue of nuclear weapons would be to give every country an equal amount of nuclear weapoons. this way it would basically be the same as no countries having any. then one might say-well couldnt one country just create more nukes? well in this situation then every other county would also be aloud to create the same number of nuclear weapons as well. then if one counrty were to nuke soemone, then the other country would have an equal chance to fight back. therefore, noone would nuke anyone because they would all be to afraid of the same thing happening to them in return.
Ellen G
Period 3
we need to understand the pointlessness of the thousands of nuclear weapons we possess and stop producing these monsters. our national security needs to be less dependant on nuclear weoponary.
as i am sure we all know, as it has been brought up numerous times in class, only two nuclear bombs were needed to end a world war, the thousands that we now possess are useless, we need to stop the frivolus spending on these weapons and take them off hair trigger alert.
we must stop relying on nuclear weapons for our national security. the U.S preaches world peace, yet we possess weapons that are capable of destroying the world. we demand other countries to disarm, yet we continue to proliferate our supply of nuclear weapons. the United States of America needs to realize that our weapons are destroying the world whether we employ them or not.
Kathryn N. R.
Period 3
Gabby R: being "on top of the food chain" is not as important as having allies and other countries who respect and trust us.
Anuj P: i think that your casual attitude about nuclear weapons is a classic example of American ignorance.
Kathryn N.R.
my option four
in short, we need neclear weapons. I think reducing neclear weapons is irresponsible, unnecissary, and unpracticle. Even if every country were to agree to reduce nuclear weapons by 3%, which they won't, there would still be no treaties made that would force terrorists to follow the law as well. The reduction would not change the flow of nuclear power, and mant countries would not be interested in seeing their weapons lowwered while we still had the most. Since the treaty is only a request and there is no talk of reprecutions or even compensation as of yet, this won't really work. Why would America want to reduce weapons by 3% when china will not do so? And why spend all that money when it will only have a negetive effect on us? By reducing our neclear weapons, we give up the defense we have used for over 200 years. 200 years of such dangerous an powerful weapons, and less then twenty have ever been used, only two by America. The entire point of our weapons is deterence, and while it may only work one in every three times or so, it has worked for the past three times consecutivly where the USA is concerned. In smaller weapons and circumstances, it may not work very often, but where nuclear weapons are involved, such a disaster could occur when these weapons are used that no contry can help but be wary of us. Why should we give that up? if we decrease weapons, i can guarentee that the last bombs to go offf will not belong to America-they will belong to whoever it is that decides to bomb America now that we have no weapons.
Miki Grim ^.^
Period 0
Acosta.k
per.3
I personally think that we should not get rid of all nuclear bombs but should keep a small amount of nuke's inorder to keep our citizens/ civilians safe.There is no point to keeping all the nuclear bombs because it is obvious that we will not use them all because if we did, it would vanish millions and millions of people. Reducing nuclear bombs to a smaller amount throughout time will not affect us due to the fact that no other country has the amount of nuke's as us. Which concludes that nuclear bombs should not be put out but at the same time not have a big amount of nuclear bombs.
Option 4
To President-Elect Obama,
INFORMING the general public of the necessity and dangers of nuclear weapons
RATIFYING the NPT and getting other nations to ratify it also
PRESERVING an amount of nuclear weapons
1.) Minimally reducing nuclear warheads at our current state
2.) Informing other nations of our plan to eventually rid of nuclear weapons
3.) Stopping all production of mini and bunker buster nukes
4.) Eventually, when the time is fit, reducing nuclear weapons drastically
5.) Forming new treaties urging other nations to follow our nation's suit.
Brent S.
Period 3
comment on mathew Tran
i definetly beleive you. no matter the danger, the need outways that by large amount. neuclear weapons are not the best thing for this wrold- in fact they are the worst- but without them america could say goodbye to everyone else fairly quickly.
comment on kathryn
you have a decent point- if we all lived in a small country no one cared about. but we don't, we live in the USA, one of the big five, the youngest one in fact. and you may have failed to notice this, but we didn't get there by being nice, we got there by proving that no matter how new of a country we are, we are able to take down any force that stands in our way. for example, the only war wev'e ever lost is the vietnam war, and the veterans from that war still get treated terribly because they made america look bad. no one in their right mind could possibly think that the american government is interested in world peace, because cwere not- were intrested in money and power, as all the big five are and have been since they started. you'r idea may work for a tiny country like the netherlands or denmark, but it's childish complaining for a country as powerful and dangerous as ours.
Miki Grim ^.^
Period 0
To President- Elect Obama:
I would like to propose another option: Option Four. This option will gradually reduce the number of our nuclear weapons to a reasonable number so that we will still be a nuclear power and still maintain our influence on the world. The whole world looks at America for guidance and if we reduce our nuclear stockpile, other nations will begin to believe that they can also be safe without relying on their nuclear weapons.
This option will ratify all current treaties on Nuclear Proliferation including the NPT, CTBT, and the Anti-Ballistic missile treaty. By doing this we will reform our ties with other strong nations and have international cooperation.
This option will also protect our citizens and provide safety for our whole country. With the money we put into our nuclear powerplants, we can provide our own country with better healthcare, funding, and education. The economy is about to collapse at this period of time so we must get all the money we can so our country does not fail as a world power.
This option reduces the amount of nuclear waste and will help the environment because we will stop developing nuclear weapons that allow waste to kill the environment.
However if the economy is doing exceptionally well and we are losing our place as a world power, we will consider creating smaller bunker-buster nuclear weapons in order to protect our country from foreign attacks. This is a great compromise between options one, two, and three.
Thank you and I greatly hope that you will consider Option Four as the best option for our entire country and the rest of the world.
Sravya C :)
Period 3 :)
Nuclear weapons are necessary to security because of deterrence. Although deterrence doesn't work all the time, it still works. Also, if we abolish all of our nuclear weapons, then terrorists might be able to make more nuclear weapons. Another reason abolishing nuclear weapons is a horrible idea is that it takes lots of money to dispose of nuclear weapons. Lowering nuclear weapons by 3 % per year is a good idea because nuclear weapons could be handled easier. The problem with this compromise is that some countries will not want to lower their nuclear weapons because the United States will still have the most nuclear weapons. My proposal is that nukes should be kept, but too many nukes should not be created and that nuclear weapons be improved to control the reactions of nuclear weapons.
Patrick Nguyen
Period 0
comment on miki grim
I agree that nuclear weapons are an essential part of security and that we should not give up your nuclear weapons because most countries wouldn't want to give up their nukes
comment on Matthew Tran
i agree that nuclear weapons are important for the united states and that terrorists would be able to make nukes when we abolish them.
Patrick Nguyen
Period 0
Commentation #1 on Kathryn R.
Great job Kathryn! I completely agree with you that our country has to be less dependent on nuclear weapons. It is not like we do not have any other types of weapons that we can use if our country is in danger. I also agree that we must reduce our nuclear stockpile to a smaller number.
Commentation #2 on Anuj Patel:
Good Job Anuj but I disagree with you about our stockpile of nuclear weapons. We MUST get rid of some of our nuclear weapons because it is wasting all the money of the USA. We do not need all our nuclear weapons and we must not create any more. There is not a high possibility that aliens will attack us any day and nuclear weapons will do us no good if aliens are not capable of being blown up.
Sravya C :)
Period 3 :)
I believe that we should keep only a small amount and get rid of the other nuclear weapons. I was option 1 and I completely agree with my option. We should eliminate some and keep a small amount, about 500 would be ok. This allows the other countries to follow what we are doing. They will be saying that us is getting rid of there nuclear weapons, we should do the same. If they don’t we can persuade them by selling them they stuff they need. We give them stuff they need and in return they can throw away there nuclear weapons. If they don’t throw away there nuclear weapons, then we don’t sell them water, supplies, food, guns, etc.
Heather M.
Period 3
I was oringinaly in option one which states that all nuclear bombs should be elimated over time. But as I as I thought about this I figured it was impossible right now but possible in the long future. So as I talked to other option I realized it was more reasonable or compromising to all countries to reduce nuclear bombs. I figured it was better to reduce to about 300 because it only took two to end a war and I don't think we need so many. This way we act as a romodel to other countries and make people feel more safer. Since bombs will be reduced the need for so many workers on them will not be needed. Thus this money will be going to more useful programs such as peacekeeping. I also strongly believe in ratifying the NPT and placing nuclear bmbs in four distinct areas.
Edwin Duran
12/18/08
Period 3
comment #1: Sarvya C.
Really good option i would say the same. I believe that we sould keep some and dispose of some.
Comment #2: Brent S.
You have a really great option. i do believe that we should inform other nation that we are getting rid of ours. Then when time is right reduce it down more and make treaties.
Heather M.
Period 3
As option 4, I believe in reduction but not complete elimination of nuclear weapons is the best solution. If United States were so completely eliminate all of their nuclear weapons we would be in great danger. There are many countries who would take advantage of the chance to destroy us. This would leave us helpless. I also do not believe in keeping all our nuclear weapons because there are other countries who fear us enough already and countries who want us to "suffer" even more. They already think we are power hungry and we want all the power, keeping and creating more nuclear weapons would increase the risk of being attacked. Besides having thousands of nuclear weapons is not necessary. If we aren't going to use them, then there is no point in us keeping all of them. Just enough to still protect ourselves.When we still have the reasonable amount of nuclear weapons we must always have great responsibility with them. Cooperation is also a key ingredient to keep the world safe. Even countries who are not fond of us because then we can find out what they want and hopefully come up with an even better solution satisfying everybody.
that one's mine. ^^^^^^^^
oops.
Samantha B.
Per. 3
My fourth option would be a mix of resolutions 2 and 3. First, I think we should Update and strengthen nucleat treaties and try to persuade the countries that have not yet signed the NPT to sign and ratify it immediatly, Co-operation is key! Then, we should slowly reduce out number of arms, Possibly with another Big 5 country that is willing to cooperate, to an amount that would not instill fear into other countries. The united States' goal is to be peaceful with everyone, however things don't always go as planned and there is always the option that countries don't cooperate as well as we would like them to, so we should keep our nuclear facilites in case there is need for more and we do not have the time to build a new one. When there is no current threat to the US these facilites should remain inactive, but in a time of war or great desperation they should be used to create more as a means of security to our people.
Emily Hicks
Period 3
My fourth option is mainly a contribution to option 2. I believe that we shouldn't keep all of our nuclear weapons or get rid of our nuclear weapons. Keeping some would help us when sudden attacks come and we have supplies to protect us. We should have a reasonable amount too so we don't have to waste as much money creating them. We've only used two to stop a war, so keeping thousands is just too much. Getting rid completely of our weapons won't ever happen because nations have been using these weapons to protect themselves from other nations.Not many of the nations would want to get rid, and if we tell them to they can end up doing them in secret. Putting the numbers to five hundred is a fair amount of weapons because we have a strong force that also has protected us from other wars.
Mildrid M.
Per. 3
Comment on Edwin:
I agree with this option because eliminating our own nuclear weapons would never really happen.
Comment on Emily:
Since you also said option 3 why would you really want to keep and make more nuclear weapons?
Mildrid M.
Per. 3
Comment on Samanta L:
You made some very good points, and I completely agree with you.
Comment on Matthew T:
While a country should be able to protect themselves, there are other ways to defend your country that don't cause so much destruction.
Courtney B.
Period 0
Everyone has there own opinions about what the US stance should be on nuclear proliferation. I personally believe that the US should decrees their weapons stockpile to a reasonable amount, but also create smaller nuclear weapons to aim better at smaller targets.
The US is putting too much money into their current nuclear programs, which is unnecessary. A smaller nuclear arscenary would still be sufficient in case of an attack. And with the extra money that we would not be putting into more 'large' nuclear weapons , we could possibly create smaller nuclear weapons that would reduce fatality rates on innocent citizens and aim more for hidden terrorist bases.
Abolishing all nuclear weapons is unreasonable and impossible. No matter what some countries will resist a treaty like that, and if one doesn't cooperate then a potential nuclear war could break out. If the US gives up are weapons then we would not be able to defend ourselves in case of attack. Which is why I believe that we should keep most of our nuclear weapons and create smaller weapons
^^^^^^^^^^
Lauren E.
Period 3
mine is the one above... i forgot to put my name on it
My fourth option is to combine options 1 and 2. This would be a great option. We would reduce nuclear weapons but to a small amount. This wold be great because this is part of option 1. This is great for option 2 because we want to get rid of some nuclear weapons but we also want to keep them. In this option we will get together with other nuclear countries and see what they agree and disagree with this option.by keeping some of our weapons this will keep the US from being attack. having small amonts of nuclear weapons will keep us safe and away from wars.
My fourth option is to combine options 1 and 2. This would be a great option. We would reduce nuclear weapons but to a small amount. This wold be great because this is part of option 1. This is great for option 2 because we want to get rid of some nuclear weapons but we also want to keep them. In this option we will get together with other nuclear countries and see what they agree and disagree with this option.by keeping some of our weapons this will keep the US from being attack. having small amonts of nuclear weapons will keep us safe and away from wars.
Ryan W.
Period 3
My fourth option is some what a combination of option two and three. I feel we have the right to keep all our nuclear weapons as a way to protect ourselves from attacks but getting rid of all of them would be impossible and other nations would not want to contribute to eliminating all nuclear weapons. I feel we should keep the ones we have but not make anymore nuclear bombs because we only used two to stop the war and don't need anymore, and I don't see why making more than what we need should be happening. I believe we should keep all the nuclear weapons we have as a way to protect ourselves and have something to rely on if something were to happen to us. We have been protect for over 60 years and I think we should no longer keep making more nuclear but we should try to reduce the numbers we have to a lower number and I feel we would still be fine reducing the number.
Valerie M.
Period: 3
Comment on Edwin:
You did a good job! And I agree that getting rid of all the nuclear weapons is never really going to happen :)
Comment on Mildrid:
Great job! I agree with your option and think that we should stop making nuclear weapons and lower the number of nuclear weapons that we have (:
Valerie M.
Period: 3
My 4th option, in my opinion, would be to reduce nuclear bombs. Reducing them by 5% every 2 years would sound reasonable enough to maintain power in countries, while still having a great affect on the proliferation of nuclear bombs. Even though they are necessary, there are too many existing in the world right now. By doing so, it could lower the manufacturing and spreading of nuclear bombs, but still allow countries to hold their power. This should only happen if most major countries agree to lower nuclear bombs. If not, it should stay as it is now, and we should keep our nuclear bombs until a handful of major nuclear bomb holding countries agree to cooperate.
-Chris H.
Period 0
Comment on Valerie M.
- I think combining option 1, 2, and 3 is a great idea. This would work both ways, and is very clever!
Comment on Patrick N.
- I agree with reducing nuclear bombs by 3% a year. This would be a wise decision, because we ultimately need a few nuclear bombs in the end!
Chris H.
Period 0
My 4th option is that i think we should keep all of our nuclear weapons. I don't think that we should get rid of any of them or make any new ones. Also i think that we should stop pouring our money in to the nuclear funds, our country is already in debt as it is. Also, i don't think we should test anymore nuclear weapons. Since we wouldn't be testing or making new nuclear weapons there is no point in putting our money into the nuclear funds because they would not need it. Nuclear weapons have protected us for sixty years and there is no need to get rid of them or reduce them. Nuclear weapons decrease a nuclear war, not increase it. Also we should keep them because they have stopped people and organizations from world wide domination. Keeping nuclear weapons makes countries less likely to attack us. Reducing our stockpiles would cost money and people would have to pay more for their taxes and they already pay a lot. Finally I think that keeping all our nuclear weapons and not reducing or making more is the best plan for the United States.
Hanna S.
Per. 3
Comments:
Valerie M.
I totally agree with you and i think that is the best idea for the United States.
Chris H.
Your idea is really creative and i think that would work. However i think that it would cost money to reduce nuclear bombs. Other than that it is a great idea.
Hanna S.
Per. 3
My option four agrees with option two in stating that the United States need to reduce the amount of nuclear weapons over a long period of time, but never eliminate them completely. we need weapons in order to protect our citizens, our safety, and our country. however, in order to accomplish this, we do not need the presence of thousands of bombs. In the past, the U.S. has only used nuclear weapons twice, and by owning thousands of weapons we will continue to waste millions of dollars and lots of time and energy. By eliminating all bombs, we become vulnerable to our fellow countries' attacks. It will also give them reason to perhaps take over the United States. As you can see, my views are reasonable and smart, and I think that everyone should take this direction in the future.
Jordy Z.
Per 3
Comments:
Joyce M.: How do you suppose we can "force" all the other countries to give up their weapons?
Gustavo R.: I agree with you about nuclear weapons protecting us and being a source of energy, but they do not necessarily have to be the main focus of the fur=ture of the world. . .
Jordy Z.
Per 3
I personally believe that nukes are very dangerous. They do so much, maybe too much, harm and damage. However, they do protect us and if we need them, we have them to use. I think that we should reduce out number of nuclear bombs to a reasonable number. It is pointless to keep them all when we don't even use them, and it is also pointless to have all these nucleur development programs. Besides being unrealistic, we should not get rid of our nuclear weapons because they provide us with a sense of security, and if we got rid of them, other nations and countries will have the opportunity to get back as us for being "the boss." We need to strengthen the NPT and our nuclear bomb treaties and form discussions with the Big 5 on this issue. I would like to point out that the United States also has more weapons and means of protection BESIDES nuclear bombs. Reduce the number and maybe even rid of nukes.
Noël H
P3
Allison W.,
I think that you made some really great points and your comment was very interesting. However, I don't think it is possible to get rid of our nuclear bombs and encouraging all other countries to do so.
Courtney B.,
See my comment to Allison above. You girls pretty much take the same position.
Noël H.
P3
Post a Comment