Philosophy of the Development of the Hydrogen Bomb
Introduction:
Dr. V and Dr. W did an excellent job in explaining the chemical makings of and the moral issues of the development of the hydrogen bomb and other nuclear weapons in their class lectures. Based on their lectures and the text, Dark Sun, The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, I will explain my moral beliefs on the development, making and current existence of this terrifying, destructive military weapon, the hydrogen bomb. My philosophy is that this horrible bomb, and other nuclear weapons like it, are the most dangerous and immoral of anything ever created on this Earth and I believe will be the cause of the end of this World, devastatingly and completely.
My Argument:
Dr. V jump-started my heart with fear on the very first day of class when he said, in 1989, the Soviets had 80 hydrogen bombs aimed just at Ohio alone. He went on to say that one 20 megaton H-bomb could destroy everything in a 4 mile radius, including buildings, plants, animals and vaporize a person in 1/10 of a second! Every city with a population of over 100,000 in the USA is a target! These war heads are computer-controlled. As we all know, computers have technical break-downs. If one of these automated computers has a malfunction and one or more of these bombs are activated, the USA (or the entire Earth) could be destroyed in a matter of 3 days! Two radioactive chemical component residuals of every nuclear explosion, Strontium 90 and Cesium 137, are the most deadliest toxins in history. Strontium 90 has the chemical composition of calcium. Human bones absorb this toxin like calcium, so, if we don t die immediately, we will die of cancer. One teaspoon of Cesium 137 could kill every human on this Earth within 3 years. And we are still training our best, most intelligent chemists and physicists to develop these deadly chemicals and bombs!
The Essay on Atomic Bomb Countries Bombs Hydrogen
The history of the atomic bomb dates back to the early 1900 s when Einstein s theory of relativity proved a basis for understanding nuclear energy and showed that the atom contained vast energy. This energy seemed beyond men s grasp until the late 1930 s. In 1939 scientists succeeded in splitting the atoms of uranium by bombarding them with neutrons. They found that the split atoms released ...
One of the questions raised in class many times was, can there be or should there be moral restraints in war and science? As I said in class, how can we even use the word war and moral in the same sentence? War is a function of killing, whether it be soldiers or civilians does not matter, it is still killing. How can killing of any kind be moral??? Killing of any kind is immoral, whether it be murder, suicide or self defense. One exception to this would be the example of absolute value with regard to abortions. The example was used about a woman who has a tubal pregnancy. I do not think it is immoral to perform an abortion in order save a woman in this case, because I do not believe that an unborn child is a person until they come into this world. Only after a person comes into the world does he or she receive a soul. I believe that we can defend our countries and our people WITHOUT killing. If self defense, such as in wars or combat, does become necessary, why could we not use sleeping gas, for instance? There were so many spies during the wars, espionage was incredible, why could they not train these men to disengage these death weapons or corrupt the files and studies on paper and in the computers? What about the measures we take these days to prevent wars – economic sanctions, etc.
Why do we have the United Nations organization? Is not the basic function of this organization to keep peace and prevent the horrible act of war? I believe the most devastating wars (Korean, World War I and II) were the result of sick, sadistic men who terrified their nations. I do not believe that most of the scientists and physicists that worked on development of these bombs would have done so if their own lives were not threatened. I believe that long ago, science was used to find truths and not to create chemicals in order to conquer countries. These twisted leaders influences and threats are the reason science is now, for the most part, performed without any moral limitations. The bottom line, is killing is wrong, any kind, any way.
The Essay on World War 1 European Nation
The number of casualties was 37, 508, 686 (Gilbert 4). The cost was over $125, 690, 477, 000. 00 (Gilbert 4). The very first line of Sidney Bradshaw Fay Thesis states, "None of the Powers wanted a European War." Why was so much money spent and why were so many lives sacrificed for a war that no nation anticipated or wanted? Who would start a war like this? Some people say Germany is to blame for ...
Objection:
Several of the class members and the much of the text strongly believe that these bombs were really created to keep the peace among our nations., Alvarez, who watched from a plane, the flash from the bombing of Hiroshima and witnessed the nothingness that was left. It destroyed the entire city. Alvarez said that this horrible bomb may prevent further wars. After WWII was over, the most destructive war in history where 55 million were killed, the atomic arms race began. It was now believed after the mass destruction of WWII, that the making of nuclear bombs would be successful in keeping us safe from future nuclear wars.
Today, the making of these bombs is inter-twined into our economy. Many large companies contribute millions of dollars investing in the making of these bombs. Many companies build parts for these bombs and therefore, are keeping millions of people employed. If production of these bombs ceased, millions would be out of work.
The US is considered a peace-loving country and they will go to any lengths to preserve its values and freedom. They believe if they have more hydrogen and atom bombs than any other nation in the world, that they will preserve the peace. They do not believe there will be another war if they can maintain this fear instilled onto other countries by keeping in control of the arms race. The USA believed this so much, that they even bombed portions of Germany after WWII, as to prevent the Soviets from getting information on making the bombs.
It is believed that all nations believe that another nuclear war would destroy the Earth. The fear of knowing we have the capacity to accomplish this is what keeps the peace in the world today, for the most part, and will continue to do so forever.
Argument to Objection:
I was raised to believe that killing and murder is the worst possible sin anyone can commit. You will go to hell if you commit this horrendous crime! Yes, we are all sinners, but I was raised that we should strive to walk the narrow path and do our best to abide by God s rules, in order to reach the ultimate life which comes after death. People who somehow condone the killing of other people in order to protect our countries are not right or justified in doing so in anyway. This is what the leaders and scientists and physicists and anyone who is knowingly working for a company who makes these components or supports the making of these bombs is doing. They are condoning killing and murder! What is wrong with this world? Has no one the fear of what is beyond this world? Has no one the fear of answering for their actions? To me, the fear is not in dying and thus building bombs to try and protect ourselves and our countries from death caused by other countries, but the fear of paying for the consequences of our behaviors after death! There is no good reason for the making or existence of the bombs. Not ever, not today.
The Essay on World War People Country Countries
Causes of World War II There are many thoughts of how World War II started, and in fact most of them are true. Hundreds of little problems led up to what the world knows as the one of the most deadly of all wars. From strong minded politicians, to poor economic situations, World War effected just about everyone in the world. Times were hard, people were unhappy about the end of World War I, and ...
Conclusion:
In conclusion, I am totally against the making of any of these nuclear bombs or any war or killing in general. It seems apparent to me that the author of the book, most of the leaders and scientists and physicists who worked on the development of these bombs and most of the people in our class, DO condone the development of the H-bomb. They feel it will keep the peace. But I strongly disagree and I know it will be the cause of the destruction of this Earth. I think these people need to read another book, the Bible and understand that this Earth is NOTHING, compared to what lies ahead for us after death. The true life.
