Sunday, November 8, 2015

Nuclear Dilemma Homework

The production and use of Nuclear weapons is a highly controversial topic, debated on between scientists and military officials alike. The original rush for the creation of the atomic bombs was because of the horrible thought of Nazi Germany gaining them first and using them to dominate the world. Nowadays they're being continually developed to make them safer and to avoid malfunctions in the event they need to be launched. During the Cold War though, both the Soviet Union and the United States rushed to create an enormous number of nuclear weapons to try and bully the other into submission. This all came to a head with Soviet nuclear technology being transported to Cuba, a mere 90 miles south of the Floridian border.

Nuclear weapons are a moral dilemma. On one hand they act as a deterrent to war, an unspoken threat to anyone considering war with a nuclear nation. On the other hand, they are an extremely efficient way to end human life, and are terribly powerful. I personally am against the use of nuclear weapons, but I do believe that they should exist and continue to exist as a deterrent.

I believe that Nuclear weapons should exist because of their constant and unspoken threat. They deter war because no one wants to have their entire country destroyed in a matter of seconds. If I were a nuclear physicist working to improve nuclear weapons, I would simply quit my job. I refuse to create something that can kill millions indeterminately at the push of a button. I could not willingly contribute to the creation of weapons of mass destruction. However, if my job were to maintain the existing weapons and ensure the safety of anyone and anything within it's range, I would gladly do my job.

If I were forced to work on a nuclear weapon with the knowledge it would be used to kill innocents to end a war, much like the scientists involved in the Manhattan Project were, I don't know what I would do. Slow my work to a crawl, hope that I was kicked out because I simply wasn't working out, or if they refused to kick me out, intentionally delay the creation. I understand that this may be immoral in and of itself, but I would gladly delay the calculations in order to hope for a better solution. I would not sabotage the project physically, but if I had no choice, I would work the slowest I possibly could.

I would sign the petition the scientists in the Manhattan Project started, hoping that the creation would never be utilized, but I understood why they chose to work on the bomb. Nazi Germany getting their hands on it first was not an option, but I'm glad they petitioned against the use of it and I would have done the same in their position.

1 comment:

  1. Interesting that you favor the existence of nuclear weapons, which requires their development, but wouldn't want to work on that yourself. That's a difficult moral position to hold and illustrates the dilemma that weapons of mass destruction create.