Arguments For Nuclear Proliferation In The United States

Nuclear proliferation is a controversial topic because of the destructive power nuclear weapons hold. The strongest counter argument is nuclear weapons are expensive to obtain and maintain, which suggests there are better alternatives to nuclear weapons. However in my view this point is wrong, because nuclear proliferation deters countries from attacking nations who obtain nuclear weapons. Therefore, countries should be allowed to pursue and maintain nuclear weapons. To begin, nuclear proliferation should be allowed because countries will negotiate more instead of war being the first option. In his academic article, “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better” Waltz persuades those who believe nuclear weapons should not be allowed, that negotiation becomes a priority over war because it ensures the safety and security of a nation. Countries do not want nuclear war so by obtaining weapons, every country has the power to attack one another but they avoid it due to negotiation. Proving countries should obtain nuclear weapons to increase negotiation, Waltz allegates, “...nuclear states do

In her article, “Arguments for Nuclear Abolition”, Fihn the persuades those who believe nuclear weapons are beneficial, that funding for nuclear weapons is excessive because the money spent on weaponry could be used elsewhere. The costs used for enhancing nuclear weapons could be used to help solve global issues and achieve world goals. Proving nuclear weapons costs could help with other problems, Fihn states, “The nine nuclear-armed nations spend many tens of billions of dollars each year maintaining and modernizing their nuclear arsenals.” Weapons have unnecessary costs that are out of budget. The money used for weapons could be used to better schools, education, and other world problems. Money is scarce and should be used in more important areas instead of