Nuclear Weapons Should Be Banned Essay

Tags: The Authority Of Experience Essays On Buddhism And PsychologyHow To Motivate Yourself To Write An EssayScoring Rubric For College Writing EssayReflective Journal Summary EssayEssay Expository OutlineOpinion Essay About MedicinePolitical Research PaperSelf Evaluation Essay For Mba

While nuclear-armed states remain opposed to a treaty banning nuclear weapons, it can still be undertaken by non-nuclear weapon states.

Of course, like the biological and chemical weapons conventions, a nuclear weapons ban would allow nations with stockpiles of these weapons to join so long as they agree to eliminate them within a specified timeframe.

It would have both normative and practical impacts on those states that stand inside and for those states outside it.

A treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons could have significant benefits for the United States.

By changing the way the world perceives nuclear weapons, a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons would have meaningful impact beyond those states that may formally adopt such an instrument at the beginning.

Nuclear Weapons Should Be Banned Essay Knowledge Management Papers Research

The ban treaty, once in force, could challenge the notion that possessing nuclear weapons is legitimate for some states.The first conference was held in March 2013 in Oslo, Norway where 128 states participated; the second in Nayarit, Mexico, in February 2014 where 146 states participated; and the third in Vienna, Austria in December 2014 with 158 states participating.All included the voices of relevant United Nations agencies, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, academia and non-governmental organizations.For example, prohibitions of biological and chemical weapons, landmines and cluster munitions have been essential steps in ongoing efforts toward eliminating these weapons.Considering the evolution of international humanitarian law since nuclear weapons were first developed and the fact that by almost any definition the use of nuclear weapons would be incredibly destructive, inhumane and indiscriminate, it remains unacceptable that nuclear weapons are not yet prohibited.While President Barack Obama’s administration chose to oppose this process, the next administration should recognize it as a legitimate international concern and support a ban on nuclear weapons.After all, numerous US presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama, supported the elimination of nuclear weapons.Over the past six years, an increased focus on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has emerged in multilateral nuclear disarmament discussions and has led to a strong push by non-nuclear armed states to jumpstart an international process to prohibit nuclear weapons.On October 27, 2016, the United Nations took a giant step towards a legally binding prohibition on nuclear weapons by voting 123 to 38 to begin formal negotiations in March 2017.Citizens of nuclear-armed states not only face this threat by being targets for nuclear attack by other nuclear-armed states, but also because of the continued risk of a nuclear detonation from within their own arsenals — either through accident, miscalculation or terrorist attack.It is every country’s responsibility to ensure that we end the threat of nuclear weapons before the world sees another nuclear detonation.