The Pros And Cons Of Banning The Atomic Bomb

862 Words4 Pages

Rough Draft
Jacob Berry In 1941, is the year the Atomic bomb changed warfare and human life forever. Many projects around the United States worked on the race to create the atomic bomb. One project, The Manhattan Project, led by Julius Robert Oppenheimer, created enough U-235 to create one of these deadly weapons. The Atomic bomb should be eliminated and banned around the world to stop the potential destruction of our world. Julius Robert Oppenheimer, a scientist from New York, grew up in a rich household with access to the best schools. Oppenheimer was chosen by the government to work on this project and win the race towards nuclear warfare. This author states what deadly substance makes these bombs. "For example, he had moved readily from Niels Bohr 's purely scientific conjecture in the 1930s that U-235 is the fissile isotope of uranium to his own problem-solving estimate in 1941 of the amount of U-235 necessary for an effective weapon."(Erwin). From this knowledge one can see that U-235, found by Niels Bohr, can react and explode in very harmful ways. Now without this …show more content…

Proliferation groups are trying to get the US to lead the way and destroying and disarming their atomic bombs in hopes that other countries will follow. Forster proposes these ideas in his own words. "The goal of the treaty is to "prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote co-operation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament."(Forster). The US cannot just say disarm your weapons and not do the same themselves. The US needs to take charge and start things themselves. Others say we need them to defend ourselves against nuclear attack if we get attacked. But, if no country had bombs to begin with we wouldn’t have to worry about nuclear

Show More
Open Document