Nuclear weapons are the most powerful weapons on the planet, and they have the potential to wipe out all life on this planet, if they were used in times of war, and the weapons were pointed at civilian cities. The less use of nuclear weapons and, thereby, the lesser threat of nuclear weapons, both make the world a little safer.
As any thinking person is aware, technology, such as that which resulted in the creation of nuclear weapons, has far outstripped our ability to use it wisely. These weapons, whose very presence is a hazard to the continuation of the human race on the earth, are still with us. Their use, through testing is a further assault - destroying and/or poisoning the earth and its inhabitants. At the very least test ban treaties work to ameliorate some of this harm!
These treaties are designed to limit the amount of radiation we poison the earth with. While many nations choose to ignore them, it is an important step in international law and cooperation. When major players are on board, it puts pressure on smaller nations to participate as well. Limiting nuclear testing is vital to our survival.
Treaties banning nuclear testing are definitely a good idea. In this day and age, we do not necessarily need to rely upon nuclear testing. We already know the danger and the destruction it can cause. To abolish nuclear testing would be a responsible and positive step for humanity and the environment.
We entered into a Partial Test Ban Treaty in 1963, and the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty in 1968. When these two treaties were first proposed, the "hawks" in many countries said it was a sign of weakness for any nation to take part in such agreements, and that even negotiating with possible "enemy" countries would be taken as a sign of weakness. At that point in our history, as a species, we had come very close to pressing that little red button which would have begun a nuclear war, from which we might not have recovered for decades or centuries. The first and most obvious advantage of having nuclear test ban treaties is that nuclear testing is in some way brought into the purview of the law. Rules have been established. If major powers don't agree to ban nuclear testing, then neither those nuclear powers, nor the United Nations, will have the authority to say to emerging, and often unstable, nations that "no, I'm sorry, as a group of civilized nations, we have all agreed that we will not test nuclear weapons, so you can not test them either". Having a test ban in place is what gives us that authority.
Agreeing to ban nuclear testing, even if those agreements are not always honored, is at least a step in the right direction. If nations can agree to stop nuclear testing, we can start to stop the proliferation of nuclear weaponry, and the capacity for mass destruction. Enforcing the bans is another matter, but just as important.
Nuclear weapons are a cold war era deterrent, and in today's world of threats and military opponents, they are unnecessary. Enough countries currently have functioning nuclear weapons that the use by any of them on an opponent will lead to mutually assured destruction. More countries don't need them. More testing is not desired, as more testing means more nuclear powers, which increases the chance that a terrorist or rogue nation will be able to get nuclear weapons to use in a terrorist attack.
No good comes to the world to continue testing nuclear weapons. They permanently damage the environment and help to further weapons that can only serve to destroy us all in the end. These treaties are a great idea, but they are not easily enforceable. Countries such as China, North Korea, and Iran will likely test nuclear weapons despite any bans.
I believe we should spend the money propagating peace agendas and feeding the hungry people of the world.
I do believe in having an excellent defense program, but I believe it can be done without nuclear arsenal.
The only thing nuclear power is acceptable to me is as a power source; under strict safety guidelines.
I believe the world needs to be a safer and more peaceful place, and testing nuclear weapons should definitely be banned.
If some one has access to a weapon when they are mad they will use it. However, if that weapon was gone, they will most likely be more diplomatic about the issue. Secondly, it will help the environment. Radiation kills living things. By not testing nuclear weapons, we will be saving nature.
Consider this, we could have a wealth of fresh and accurate data on:
•What the weapons yield and how they damage their surroundings.
•How to better recover from nuclear attacks, socially, economically, environmentally, and politically.
•How to design safer buildings in general, such as blast-resistant buildings as a standard.
•Most importantly, how to reduce human casualties in the event of a war.
If we did ban nuclear testing we would have 0 power in a Nuclear War.
Plus if we had weapons people would be afraid of our country . Plus there are multiple country's with power like that so we need to have power so that when people attack us we HAVE POWER!
- To conduct a science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program to ensure a high level of confidence in the safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons in the active stockpile;
- To maintain modern nuclear laboratory facilities and programs;
- To maintain the basic capability to resume nuclear test activities prohibited by CTBT;
- To conduct a comprehensive research and development program - to improve U.S. treaty monitoring;
- To conduct intelligence programs that would gather information on worldwide nuclear arsenals, nuclear weapons development programs, and related nuclear programs; and
- To establish an understanding that there is an option for the President, in consultation with Congress, to withdraw from the CTBT if the Secretaries of Defense and Energy determine that a type of nuclear weapon critical to U.S. national security can no longer be certified.
(THF) 2015 Michaela Dodge and Baker Spring
If nuclear testing would be banned, the countries which already possess a nuclear arsenal would have an advantage when dealing with countries which have no mass destruction weapons in their possession. It would be a start of a new imperialistic age. Inequality leads always to conflicts. Humanity would step over one hundred years back in progress.
When countries agree to certain terms in order to maintain aid or trade, it can lead to deceptive practices by their leaders to hide behavior that they maintain is appropriate. Certain leaders may fear appearing weak or conquerable by their neighbors or other allies. I believe in the promotion of treating others well, and a reduction of foreign government interference.
I do not believe all countries can be trusted to comply with a ban on nuclear tests. It would be detrimental for the United States to discontinue testing while countries that are a threat continue to do so. The United States needs to communicate to those very countries that we are armed and ready should we determine a nuclear threat.