Philosophy Of The Development Of The Hydrogen Bomb

The Free essays given on our site were donated by anonymous users and should not be viewed as samples of our custom writing service. You are welcome to use them to inspire yourself for writing your own term paper. If you need a custom term paper related to the subject of Philosophy or Philosophy Of The Development Of The Hydrogen Bomb , you can hire a professional writer here in just a few clicks.
Philosophy of the Development of the Hydrogen Bomb Introduction: Dr. V and Dr. W did an excellent job in explaining the chemical makings of and the moral issues of the development of the hydrogen bomb and other nuclear weapons in their class lectures. Based on their lectures and the text, Dark Sun, The Making of the Hydrogen Bomb, I will explain my moral beliefs on the development, making and current existence of this terrifying, destructive military weapon, the hydrogen bomb. My philosophy is that this horrible bomb, and other nuclear weapons like it, are the most dangerous and immoral of anything ever created on this Earth and I believe will be the cause of the end of this World, devastatingly and completely. My Argument: Dr. V jump-started my heart with fear on the very first day of class when he said, in 1989, the Soviets had 80 hydrogen bombs aimed just at Ohio alone. He went on to say that one 20 megaton H-bomb could destroy everything in a 4 mile radius, including buildings, plants, animals and vaporize a person in 1/10 of a second! Every city with a population of over 100,000 in the USA is a target! These war heads are computer-controlled. As we all know, computers have technical break-downs. If one of these automated computers has a malfunction and one or more of these bombs are activated, the USA (or the entire Earth) could be destroyed in a matter of 3 days! Two radioactive chemical component residuals of every nuclear explosion, Strontium 90 and Cesium 137, are the most deadliest toxins in history. Strontium 90 has the chemical composition of calcium. Human bones absorb this toxin like calcium, so, if we don t die immediately, we will die of cancer. One teaspoon of Cesium 137 could kill every human on this Earth within 3 years. And we are still training our best, most intelligent chemists and physicists to develop these deadly chemicals and bombs! One of the questions raised in class many times was, can there be or should there be moral restraints in war and science? As I said in class, how can we even use the word war and moral in the same sentence? War is a function of killing, whether it be soldiers or civilians does not matter, it is still killing. How can killing of any kind be moral??? Killing of any kind is immoral, whether it be murder, suicide or self defense. One exception to this would be the example of absolute value with regard to abortions. The example was used about a woman who has a tubal pregnancy. I do not think it is immoral to perform an abortion in order save a woman in this case, because I do not believe that an unborn child is a person until they come into this world. Only after a person comes into the world does he or she receive a soul. I believe that we can defend our countries and our people WITHOUT killing. If self defense, such as in wars or combat, does become necessary, why could we not use sleeping gas, for instance? There were so many spies during the wars, espionage was incredible, why could they not train these men to disengage these death weapons or corrupt the files and studies on paper and in the computers? What about the measures we take these days to prevent wars - economic sanctions, etc. Why do we have the United Nations organization? Is not the basic function of this organization to keep peace and prevent the horrible act of war? I believe the most devastating wars (Korean, World War I and II) were the result of sick, sadistic men who terrified their nations. I do not believe that most of the scientists and physicists that worked on development of these bombs would have done so if their own lives were not threatened. I believe that long ago, science was used to find truths and not to create chemicals in order to conquer countries. These twisted leaders influences and threats are the reason science is now, for the most part, performed without any moral limitations. The bottom line, is killing is wrong, any kind, any way. Objection: Several of the class members and the much of the text strongly believe that these bombs were really created to keep the peace among our nations., Alvarez, who watched from a plane, the flash from the bombing of Hiroshima and witnessed the nothingness that was left. It destroyed the entire city. Alvarez said that this horrible bomb may prevent further wars. After WWII was over, the most destructive war in history where 55 million were killed, the atomic arms race began. It was now believed after the mass destruction of WWII, that the making of nuclear bombs would be successful in keeping us safe from future nuclear wars. Today, the making of these bombs is inter-twined into our economy. Many large companies contribute millions of dollars investing in the making of these bombs. Many companies build parts for these bombs and therefore, are keeping millions of people employed. If production of these bombs ceased, millions would be out of work. The US is considered a peace-loving country and they will go to any lengths to preserve its values and freedom. They believe if they have more hydrogen and atom bombs than any other nation in the world, that they will preserve the peace. They do not believe there will be another war if they can maintain this fear instilled onto other countries by keeping in control of the arms race. The USA believed this so much, that they even bombed portions of Germany after WWII, as to prevent the Soviets from getting information on making the bombs. It is believed that all nations believe that another nuclear war would destroy the Earth. The fear of knowing we have the capacity to accomplish this is what keeps the peace in the world today, for the most part, and will continue to do so forever. Argument to Objection: I was raised to believe that killing and murder is the worst possible sin anyone can commit. You will go to hell if you commit this horrendous crime! Yes, we are all sinners, but I was raised that we should strive to walk the narrow path and do our best to abide by God

Our inspirational collection of essays and research papers is available for free to our registered users

Related Essays on Philosophy

Anarchy

Anarchy: noun. 1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohering principle, as a common standard or purpose. [Greek anarkhia, without a r...

On Liberty-Value Of Liberty

On Liberty is a work by John Stuart Mill, which is focused on proving that liberty is valuable to the individual, and society as a whole. By granting certain individual rights and freedoms, it woul...

Situation Ethics And Its Relationship To Idolatry

Joseph F. Fletcher - Situation Ethics and it’s relationship to Idolatry In 1991, when Joseph F. Fletcher passed away at the ripe old age of 86 (ref 1) there were very few present to obs...

Life After Death

Is this the beginning, middle, or end of our existence? Have we lived before in another time, another place? What awaits us when we die? Is the physical being all there really is to our existen...

The Errancy Of Fundamentalism Disproves The God Of The Bible

The Errancy of Fundamentalism Disproves the God of the Bible 1. Introduction This essay will investigate the often-made claim from Christians, that the Bible is the inspired word of god, a coroll...

Is Anything Of Significance Lost In Giving Up The

Throughout 'On Certainty', Wittgenstein's aim is to remove thefalse pictures created by traditional philosophers, by uncoveringthe true way that our language functions in our lives, andshowing ...

www.a-dlplomus.com

https://xn--e1agzba9f.com

помощь на экзамене онлайн