Should the U.S. have invested in research into nuclear weapons in the 1940? The idea of nuclear weapons sounds quiet horrific and apocalyptic in the present public view. This view originated from nuclear energy being used as weapons rather than tools, none the less, the question evokes if the U.S should have invested into the research of nuclear material. Now of course one of the main reasons as to why U.S should have done this is because they won WW2 by inventing nuclear bombs. In retrospect, U.S should have invested research into nuclear weapons because nuclear energy poses the appearance of more energy sources for the society as well as healing cancer and the evident build up of world peace. …show more content…
Now, nuclear material is destructive in nature when used as a weapon, however, it can easily be used as a source of energy as to being nuclear energy. Another perspective is that it can be a dangerous bomb; “We have been able to harness this tremendous energy in a small bomb”. Yes it can be turned into a bomb but this as well can pose as an opportunity to make it into spaceship fuel as well as car fuel in the future. Einstein states that “if successful, radioactive poisoning of the atmosphere and hence annihilation of any life on earth has been brought within the range of technical possibilities”. That statement is true if there is no regulation regarding nuclear uses therefore it is still possible to use safely. In regards to the development of the nuclear bomb, Einstein said the following: “it is impossible to achieve peace as long as every single action is taken with a possible future conflict in view”. The phenomenon is true as wells so towards nuclear bombs because of it's original use and first public view. In spite of that, we still can use nuclear power as energy and as an appliance for treating