ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Education and Science»
  • Chemistry

Nuclear weapons - good or bad?

Updated on March 4, 2014

Atomic bombing

Source
This shows the damage an atomic bomb can do to the outside of human body
This shows the damage an atomic bomb can do to the outside of human body | Source

Consequences of nuclear weapons

The first bad thing about nuclear weapons, is that, it clearly ruins and ravages major part of the land. But the nuclear weapons also have a lot of biological consequences. When the bomb explodes, it emits a lot of ionizing beams. These beams are very radioactive and with it also hazardous for the human body. It could harm and injure the DNA and the genes.

But the beams could also cause death a few hours after, the bomb explodes. When the human body have got too much irradiation, the issues in the bones and the white blood corpuscles, get destroyed. A major part of the energy is getting emits as a blast wave. This blast wave is dispatched with a high speed, which ruins big areas.

Another big consequence, is the fevour - nearly about 100.00 degrees. This temperature results in fire, of which ash particles gets into the air. This course in rain, which is black and very radioactive. The rain also destroys many of the vegetation, given the fact that the plants and animals admit the substance. So nuclear weapons are very powerful, and they have many consequences.

W. Heisenberg
W. Heisenberg | Source
Niels Bohr
Niels Bohr | Source

"Copenhagen" by Michael Frayn

In 1941, German physicist Heisenberg paid a visit to Bohr. The two spoke very briefly before Bohr angrily ended the conversation and Heisenberg left. Mystery and controversy have surrounded this historic exchange. About a decade after the war, Heisenberg maintained that visited Bohr, his friend and father-figure, to discuss his own ethical concerns about nuclear weaponry. However, Bohr remembers differently; he claims that Heisenberg seemed to have no moral qualms about creating atomic weapons for the Axis powers.

Incorporating a healthy combination of research and imagination, Michael Frayn creates the meeting of Heisenberg and Niels Bohr. Was Heisenberg immoral for trying to supply the Nazis with atomic energy?

Was Bohr and the other allied scientists behaving unethically by creating the atomic bomb? Was Heisenberg visiting Bohr to seek moral guidance?

Or was he simply flaunting his superior status?

Each of these are worthy questions to chew on. The play doesn’t provide a definitive answer, but it does hint that Heisenberg was a compassionate scientist who loved his fatherland, yet did not approve of atomic weapons. And, of course, many historians would disagree with Frayn’s interpretation.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki, World War II
Hiroshima and Nagasaki, World War II | Source

Is it the media that makes the use of nuclear weapons look bad?

The author of the hubpage "Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombing only thought wrong because of media's irrational influence" has a very clear opinion on the topic.

He believes that the atomic bombing of the Japanese cities Hiroshima and Nagaski was the right way to end World War II. He says that even though the bombs caused extensive damage and a great loss of people, continuing the war would have caused even more damage and a even greater loss of inoccent lives.

But it was the best for the economy as well, he says, because if the war had not been stopped the US army had had to spent even more ressources and soldiers, which they could no longer afford.

According to the author, the issue isn't the use of atomic bombs (nuclear weapons) but the way it has been represented by the media. The media talked about it as one of the most horrifying and inhuman acts of mankind. He says, that if it hasn't been represented this way, but in a neutral way, people would most likely have had another opinion on the question of nuclear weapons today.

Conclusion

So, is the use of nuclear weapons good or bad?

Nuclear weapons are without a doubt powerful and descructive. If we look only at the consequences towards the human body and the environment, theres is no doubt that nuclear bombing and radiation is damaging and not good at all.

But if you ask people like the author of the hubpage mentioned in this hubpage, nuclear weapons aren't necessarily a bad thing, because it was necessary at the time they were used. Some people might say that it is good for the economy and the damage of World War II would have been even greater than the damage of the atomic bombs.

We haven't found one right answer yet, but our opinion is clear: The use of nuclear weapons is NOT OK!

Use of nuclear weapons

Are you for or against the use of nuclear weapons?

See results

Comments

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • profile image

      Anonymous 7 months ago

      Nuclear weapons might be needed for a country's safety, but they could also be used against it.

    • profile image

      mohan 3 years ago

      nuclear weapons are necessary for country's safety

    • profile image

      mohan 3 years ago

      nuclear weapons are necessary for country's safety