Nuclear Weapons: A Rhetorical Analysis

The discussion of nuclear weapons has been going on since the United States was the first to use nuclear warfare in 1945. Since then, the world has had further incidents with nuclear weapons such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and recent events like North Korea’s nuclear tests Shultz ET. AL. referenced in their article. These incidents will always spark the debate: “Should countries be allowed to have nuclear warheads for their country's defense?” Many have taken this question and have deliberated on it in many different tones and perspectives. With a world filled with conflicting viewpoints, Jonathan Tepperman’s, “Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb”, and Shultz ET.AL’s,”A World Free of Nuclear Weapons” shows conflicting viewpoints on whether

The tone of the article is informative, concise, and serious. Throughout the article, the authors use many excerpts from important nuclear based speeches throughout history such as Lyndon Johnson’s “Atoms for Peace” , in which Johnson proclaims,” {America’s} Determination to help solve the fearful atomic dilemma-- to devote its entire heart and mind to find the way by which the miraculous inventiveness of man shall not be dedicated to his death, but consecrated to his life.” In the beginning of the third paragraph, the authors get straight to the point and “highlight the fact that the world is now on the precipice of a new and dangerous nuclear era.” The authors are able to relay a serious tone throughout the paper by using attention grabbing yet concerned statements like, “But by themselves, none of these steps are adequate to the danger.” Towards the end of the article, the tone changes to a prideful tone while referencing “America’s moral heritage.” The style of this article is factual and informational. The authors use statistics and facts that are unbiased. For example, they reference Cooperative Threat Reduction Program, which gives readers the feel of an informative writing style. “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons” shows a concerned tone and precise language to convey their

For example, Tepperman’s article is casual, while Shultz .ET. AL’s article was serious and used powerful language to present information. “A World Free of Nuclear Weapons” moves toward a hands-on approach to eliminate nuclear weapons, while “Why Obama Should Learn to Love the Bomb” eludes to a distant approach on nuclear weapons. Both authors use outside information and statistics to help their arguments, but Tepperman’s informal writing style and sarcastic tone contradicts with Shultz ET.AL.’s formal writing style and serious tone. In the end, a nuclear weapon is a nuke, and there will always be different views of