Rjjrurr rwehr eu re rer ehreu reur e rerher r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r 3 er we we w ew ew e ew ew e w ew e we we e Because i said so
PEOPLE DIE THEY ARE VERY HARMFUL aBSELEMH H H H H HH H HH H H SHD HA HFH SFH LHD HFHK SDYOIFK SAOIFG KJUGS OIAFKSOI FK NSPOF KAS OPD KASO PDK A ODA S[DK A OPDK AS PDO JN MK MK MIK IK IK I I I II II
If we keep on using nuclear weapons the world would end.The nuclear weapons release a gas that would cut out our food supply then we will die out.If every country keeps on using nuclear weapons to attack other countries,then they would attack them,finally every one will start attacking each other until no one is left.
They kill both soldiers and civilains."but with them we can destroy our enemys!" Our enemys have them as well so they can destroy us! Plus they cost a lot and the funds could have been used for other things. Ok? You get my argument now that im done? Good. Bye
If nuclear weapons would be banned throughout the world, and did not exist even illegally, there would be a millions of lives that wouldn't have gotten to waste. Nuclear weapons could be extremely harmful and cause mass destruction and kill innocents as these weapons are too strong and can go out of control very easily. This harms the nature and the environment around us. Not to mention, also takes lives of innocent people,also kills a lot animals which could affect the food cycle because of which the world would be a mess and would eventually get out of order. All nuclear weapons are good for is to create war.
Nuclear weapons are a bomb waiting to go off, literally. They could start a world war. And end it even faster. The nukes are so powerful, they could destroy many countries very fast, and the way politics are going, it seems a few might be launched soon.
That is my argument.
They should be banned as it harms millions of people and they even destroys the place where these are used and they causes harm to both countries between which the war is going on
Since the use of these weapons cover a large area and cause harm to even small children which is seriously very cruel
Imagine a war where both countries launch nukes on each other. Both countries will be destroyed. Pointless! A global ban would prevent global nuclear annihilation. Yes I know you think it prevents wars but without any weapons of mass destruction, you can't be threatened. If most countries are against nukes, any country that tries to rebel will be dealt with.
Nuclear weapons should be banned globally, because the havoc they wreak is unmatched by any weapon we've ever seen used before, including the atom bombs dropped by the United States. If everyone were to disarm at once, it would be a great day for the world and humanity as a whole.
I personally think that the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapon use are more destructive than those of any other weapon developed throughout history. The main immediate effects are intense light and heat, a massive blast wave, and ionising radiation. Matter is vaporised. People are blinded. Blast effects pull apart buildings, crush people to death and cause hurricane force winds that hurl cars and masonry. The heat burns through skin and sets the landscape ablaze. Radiation and radioactive fallout cause sickness, that breaks down the organs of those that survived the blast. The effects cover wide areas.
Nuclear weapons must not be banned on a global scale because it being one of the factor why the countries do not attack each other, Due to the fear of a weapon of mass destruction.
It makes small countries self existent and powerful, And erases the fear of being attacked by big countries.
Nuclear weapon is a tool of mass peace instead of a tool of mass destruction! It can prevent an other world war.
This is my argument
Everyone is scared to get into a war because they know these will be used. No that is not true some bombs do not come. Here is an example north Korea nukes the us the us will go to the united nations would punish north korea and would strip the leaders rank so they are safe
No nuclear weapons should not be banned on a global scale, because if we were to ban nuclear weapons there would be countries that will of course obey the new policy but again there's other countries that wont and therefor the countries that did respect the law would be defenseless against them
No, nuclear weapons should not be banned on a global scale, because there would be no way to ever police that to make sure that nations obey it. It would lead to trustworthy nations, like England, Israel and the United States, keeping their promises, which North Korea and Iran had nuclear weapons anyways.
Nuclear weapons are likely one of the key forces that prevents major nations from attacking one another, I believe the threat of mutual destruction is enough to maintain peace between hostile nations, any rouge nation found using nuclear weapons should be immediately dealt with by the global community through the United Nations.