In February 13, 2009 they have such a long debate which President Barack Obama “referred to the need to reduce the force structure of our strategic military systems by cutting the number of deployed nuclear weapons”. In this debate he spoke about why we should reduce our nuclear weapon and what it will be cause of reducing it. He also mentions that military civilian leaders have make plan to reduce nuclear weapons, the main question is what if United State reduce nuclear weapon and what will be consequences for nuclear weapon reduce.
In the book of “Spread of Nuclear weapon” Scott D. Sagan also said that we should worry if United State have more nuclear weapon and the reason he give is “The two superpower maintained a long peace throughout the cold war, despite deep political hostilities, numerous crises and a prolonged arm race.” (The spread of Nuclear weapon: Chapter 1). What he want to say that it will be more dangerous for United Stated to get a more nuclear weapon. If we use nuclear zero option what will be happen. In the book of nuclear weapon Scott D. Sagan is totally agree on it because same time President Barack Obama give speech in 2009 and he said that “ Stands to transform the world only superpower into a nuclear impotent, The united State will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons” (the spread of Nuclear weapon: Chapter 7).President statement describe that if we try to reduce nuclear weapon it will be no harm of United State and it will be create more peace in the United State. When Scott D. Sagan is agrees about nuclear zero is the best option, but in other hand Kenneth N. Waltz is disagree because he said that “ This zero option has intuitive appeal. Nuclear weapons are immensely destructive. No defense against them is possible. Why then should states not bond together and agree to abolish them? He trying to said that it won’t be even safe for the United State if we don’t have any nuclear weapon or if even we reduce it, because Waltz afraid what if we reduce our nuclear weapon and other countries get more nuclear weapon. Waltz trying to compare nuclear weapon with other countries include, Iran, Iraq and China …show more content…
In the article of “Defense Breaking” author “Blake McMahons” have argument that we still need more weapon because he start giving a lot of real example when Hiroshima and Nagasaki happen. He said that “For humanity’s sake, we must do everything possible to ensure that nuclear weapons are never again used in war. The consequences are simply too grave”, he also mention that if we use nuclear weapon make the world more dangerous, but at the same time Blake still considers to increase nuclear weapon, because he don’t want to denied what would happen in past and he kept saying that we should think prepared ourselves if we lost nuclear …show more content…
Jonathan compared President Barack Obama statement and Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Jonathan said that “who 's ever seen pictures of Hiroshima or Nagasaki knows. It 's also popular; U.S. presidents have been making similar noises There 's just one problem with the reasoning: it may well be wrong”. In his statement he said that it couldn’t be possible to stop producing nuclear weapon. Whatever we create new policy we still consider looking our
In the book of “Spread of Nuclear weapon” Scott D. Sagan also said that we should worry if United State have more nuclear weapon and the reason he give is “The two superpower maintained a long peace throughout the cold war, despite deep political hostilities, numerous crises and a prolonged arm race.” (The spread of Nuclear weapon: Chapter 1). What he want to say that it will be more dangerous for United Stated to get a more nuclear weapon. If we use nuclear zero option what will be happen. In the book of nuclear weapon Scott D. Sagan is totally agree on it because same time President Barack Obama give speech in 2009 and he said that “ Stands to transform the world only superpower into a nuclear impotent, The united State will take concrete steps toward a world without nuclear weapons” (the spread of Nuclear weapon: Chapter 7).President statement describe that if we try to reduce nuclear weapon it will be no harm of United State and it will be create more peace in the United State. When Scott D. Sagan is agrees about nuclear zero is the best option, but in other hand Kenneth N. Waltz is disagree because he said that “ This zero option has intuitive appeal. Nuclear weapons are immensely destructive. No defense against them is possible. Why then should states not bond together and agree to abolish them? He trying to said that it won’t be even safe for the United State if we don’t have any nuclear weapon or if even we reduce it, because Waltz afraid what if we reduce our nuclear weapon and other countries get more nuclear weapon. Waltz trying to compare nuclear weapon with other countries include, Iran, Iraq and China …show more content…
In the article of “Defense Breaking” author “Blake McMahons” have argument that we still need more weapon because he start giving a lot of real example when Hiroshima and Nagasaki happen. He said that “For humanity’s sake, we must do everything possible to ensure that nuclear weapons are never again used in war. The consequences are simply too grave”, he also mention that if we use nuclear weapon make the world more dangerous, but at the same time Blake still considers to increase nuclear weapon, because he don’t want to denied what would happen in past and he kept saying that we should think prepared ourselves if we lost nuclear …show more content…
Jonathan compared President Barack Obama statement and Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Jonathan said that “who 's ever seen pictures of Hiroshima or Nagasaki knows. It 's also popular; U.S. presidents have been making similar noises There 's just one problem with the reasoning: it may well be wrong”. In his statement he said that it couldn’t be possible to stop producing nuclear weapon. Whatever we create new policy we still consider looking our