| The end of the Cold War has led to significant understanding and cooperation between two major superpowers, and has given many to believe that the age of nuclear fear would be over. Unfortunately, although there were successes in reducing the world of nuclear stockpiles and many reforms were given to halt its production, the efforts to fully disarm the world of these weapons has been a very slow process.;There are many advocates of supporting the abolishment of nuclear weapons, but there are a few who argue the fact that perhaps this world may still need these weapons. It may seem like a very unpopular topic to look into, but the fact of the matter is nuclear weapons are a big part of how the world works, and simply making them disappear for the greater good does not seem like a realistic view for some. Authors like Hans Blix, Michael E. O'Hanlon, Randy Rydell and Gotz Neuneck have stated their concerns on the efforts of nuclear disarmament, and that the world may need these weapons for the foreseeable future.;Nuclear disarmament is a goal many would say they can stand behind, from the weapons' destructive nature to its puzzling existence in today's modern world. Unfortunately the world does not have a unified stance on having a nuclear free world, and because of this, the efforts to dismantle these weapons may prove to be a struggle that sees no end.;This paper will try and see the reasoning why these weapons are still in existence today and whether or not a world without nuclear weapons would make a difference. Which is asking the question if the efforts of nuclear disarmament are truly necessary? An argument can be made as to why nuclear disarmament will not work, as recent events have shown that these weapons may be around for many years to come and the efforts in trying to stop their development are seen as an unwinnable endeavor. |
