One of today’s most major and controversial issues is nuclear disarmament. Nuclear disarmament is the banning of the use and production of all nuclear weapons. One side of the conflict supports a global effort to ban all nuclear weapons and drastically reduce the size of nuclear arsenals. This would benefit humanity in more ways than one: it would help reduce the risk of destroying the planet we live on, it would help provide money and resources to other charitable causes, and it would drastically improve the relations between certain nations that oppose nuclear weapons or do not have possession of them because there is no risk of a nuclear war. Maintaining security and keeping nuclear weapons functioning takes an enormous amount of money from every nation that has and keeps them. It prevents the U.S. and other countries from having the connections and agreements that they should, and keeps people living in fear of a nuclear war in our near future. These are all big problems which need to be solved. In order to prevent future nuclear wars, explosions, and unnecessary loss of life, all nuclear weapons should be banned around the world.

Nuclear weapons are extremely powerful and dangerous, which means that if they were ever used, there is a great risk of causing global destruction. Tim Wright, Australian Director of ICAN, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, says “Nuclear weapons pose a grave threat to the future of humanity… In the years following the end of the Cold War, the U.S. and Russia amassed close to 70,000 nuclear warheads, enough to destroy every city in the world several times.” This shows that even with such a number of nuclear bombs, it is completely possible to massacre all humans on Earth. Not only that, but we can also endanger the future of survival on our planet by not permitting life to exist on it for numerous generations to come (“Nuclear Weapons”). Nuclear weapons pose a threat to humanity in general, and not just specific or select groups, or to the countries that possess them, but all of us. There is no reason to think that death is not in our near future. Nuclear weapons should be banned because there is always a looming deadline as to how long certain countries can last before resorting to mass murder. “The very existence of nuclear weapons and their products endanger our safety because they are susceptible to terrorist exploitation. Nuclear weapons and production sites all over the world are vulnerable to terrorist attack or to the theft of weapons to be used for illegal purposes,” states David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. A freak accident, a purposeful detonation, or simply a bomb that falls into the wrong hands: all of theses are risks we cannot eliminate until we get rid of the root of the problem: the weapons themselves. No problem can be solved until there is a concrete solution and adequate reasoning. Human annihilation is not the only reason for nuclear disarmament, because there are numerous others as well.

Taking precautions and proper management for nuclear materials takes away a large portion of the tax money the government gathers that would have better uses in other areas. For example, instead of arming ourselves for unnecessary defense or attacks, it would be more useful to give money to charities and shelters that help feed, clothe, and house the poor instead. “… their [nuclear weapons] development divert vast public resources from health care, education, climate action, disaster relief, and other essential services. It is estimated that in 2011 that the 9 nuclear – armed nations spent a total of $104.9 billion on their nuclear arsenal despite the International Court of Justice having declared in 1996 that it is illegal to use or detonate nuclear weapons,” writes Tim Wright, leader of ICAN. Even Generals, Presidents, Secretaries, and other people with positions of influence around the world have openly declared that they support nuclear disarmament, and encourage reducing the size of arsenals and the detonation of nuclear warheads. For example, in 2009, General Ban – Ki Moon, UN Secretary, once said: “The world is over – armed and peace is underfunded.” This shows how global leaders have begun to realize that nuclear weapons are a severe drain on a national budget, which can help people living there in better ways than with lethal weapons. Our own President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in 1953, stated: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, [from] those who are cold and are not clothed.” In order to better understand the severity of the issue of nuclear warfare, the exact numbers of the National Nuclear Arsenal of the United States. As of the 21st century, there are 4,760 warheads in the U.S. stockpile, 500 B61 nuclear bombs, and 38mt of plutonium, a highly radioactive substance that can be used to make nuclear weapons, along with a variety of different elements. The cost of maintaining this arsenal yearly is about $60 billion. (“Nuclear Disarmament: United States”) However, the cost and effect of nuclear weapons are only a part of the contributing factor to why we should ban them. There is, of course, always a political and social aspect of an issue.

Nuclear weapons pose a major threat, both morally and politically as well. It is immoral to keep billions of people living in fear of a nuclear war or accident in the future. Possession of nuclear weapons also stresses relationships between different nations, especially ones that do and do not have a hold of nuclear weapons, decreasing chances of peace. As stated in “Nuclear Weapons: What Should Our Policy Be?,” “Lack of cooperation among nations worsens the problem of nuclear weapons. We should begin a coordinated diplomatic effort to reduce the risks of nuclear weapons associated with the leftover Cold War arsenals, terrorism, and proliferation. We should work with other nations to completely eliminate nuclear weapons.” This demonstrates how nuclear weapons affect not just social issues, but also endangers important and strengthening relationships between different countries, which ultimately hinder the process of peace. If not for nuclear weapons, exchanges between two separate nations could become better, such as with the U.S. and Russia, since the possibility of bombing each other to destroy everything and everyone is out of the picture. “International arms agreements play an important role in controlling the risks posed by nuclear weapons… Reducing the number of nuclear weapons reduces the risk they pose to humanity and the planet. Other states make policy on nuclear weapons in the context of what the United States does. We serve as an important example to others,” states the article “Nuclear Weapons: What Should Our Policy Be?” This makes a valid point – the U.S. is like a test or a model to other countries on what their rules, laws, and viewpoints should be. If we make the wrong decision, we can cause a lot of unwanted trouble. If, however, we make the right choice, being, in this case, peace, then we can prevent world destruction. In the article “Nuclear Weapons – The New Nuclear Age,” it states: “After the end of the Cold War, the world clutched at the idea that nuclear annihilation was off the table… Although the world continues to comfort itself with the thought that mutually assured destruction is unlikely, [but] the risk that somebody somewhere will use a nuclear weapon is growing apace… Islamic terrorists… [angry] rebels… global leaders… even ordinary citizens… worst of all is the instability.” This shows the mentality of the majority of the population feels about nuclear weapons. All of us are aware of the painful death that results from extreme radiation from nuclear bombs, and none of us want it. Banning nuclear weapons would not only increase our personal safety, but the safety of others as well, and benefit by strengthening our relationships with other countries.

On the other hand, some people may believe that abolishing nuclear weapons is not a good solution to the problem because nuclear weapons provide a threat and protection to the U.S. and other countries, because other countries are intimidated by possibility of a nuclear war and would like to avoid it. However, it is not fair or just to have citizens just like us live in fear of a nuclear war and complete and total destruction. It would be far safer to dismantle all nuclear warheads and bombs to avoid the probability of such a situation. We have other forms and different varieties of weaponry that are less impacting on the Earth. Disabling all nuclear weapons will also improve relations between different countries and encourage thoughts of peace and agreement. However, still others may state: although nuclear weapons are a threat, there is no way a ban can be placed on them. In fact, regulating or abolishing their use may cause an increased interest in the matter and lead to illegal mass reproduction. This can cause more trouble that it is worth by leaving other nations unprotected and viable to a nuclear war, which is not a good option for either side in the conflict. The above, fortunately, is not true. By abolishing the use and production of nuclear weapons, we are effectively barring their purpose. If they somehow illegally are reproduced, we can still dismantle them, as we should. The culprits behind the process should be arrested, and hopefully, this will prevent future replications of the incident. In short, one of the most positive things we can do in the world as of now is ban the use of nuclear weapons.

To sum it all up, nuclear disarmament would clearly benefit every country or nation around the globe. It has social, political, and important moral benefits that result from it. In order to live a world free of fear, with nations you can rely on in times of need, and prevent absolute and total destruction, the only possible solution is to destroy all nuclear weapons. They do not offer us safety – they are the epitome of instability, a literal ticking bomb that people live in fear of its explosion, while the so – called experts tell us that there is no risk. Nuclear weapons are just one of the many option there are for a choice of weaponry and defense, and they can easily be banned and replaced by something far less destructive. Nuclear weapons have no direct benefits to society other than instability and a threat. The enormous budget that they require is completely out of the charts and unnecessary for protection. Other countries avoid nations that have nuclear arsenals for good reason – nobody wants to die a gruesome death from these weapons. How will we achieve peace or even agree on a topic if the threat of dying looms above us like the devil waiting for his master to signal him to charge? Nuclear weapons are just too big of a risk to take for the future of our children and the following generations. Take a stand for your world, your country, your people, and join the stand against nuclear weapons.