NUCLEAR TESTING – Good or Bad

Replies

• 

  shalini_goel14

  Bad.......
• 

  Ashraf HZ

  Real life testing is always bad. However, things are picking up on the supercomputer front, where one can simulate a nuclear explosion.
  
  I think a better debate would be.. do we really need nuclear weapons? Deterrence might become irrelevant today when the bigger issues include health, terrorism and economy 😉
• 

  ms_cs

  It is having advantages too. Risks are always there. Every invention like things are having its own disadvantages and advantages.
• 

  Ashraf HZ

  Other than deterrence, what advantage does it have?
• 

  ms_cs

  Hmm..It doesnot have any other advantage...It is a big advantage.right?
• 

  Ashraf HZ

  Haha, you are right.. though, it might be relevant during Cold War. Humanity is facing other crises these days.
  
  Deterrence is like catch 22. It wouldn't have been an issue if there was no prime mover in the development of nuclear arms. Its good to see there were initiatives in dismantling those weapons, but with some nations (or even groups) still eager to get their hands on them.. even the concept of deterrence would break down and we'd end up in a nuclear war. So its better to just get rid of them entirely.
• 

  shalini_goel14

  Bigger disadvantage is disposal of nuclear wastes if it is nuclear fission.
• 

  Saandeep Sreerambatla

  The results are ever bad !!!
  
  the disposals are very harmful and if we do nuclear tests and get those weapons the effects to the effected country in the war is also huge.
  So Its BAD.
• 

  kashish0711

  ash

  Other than deterrence, what advantage does it have?

  ms_cs

  Hmm..It doesnot have any other advantage...It is a big advantage.right?

  1. Allows you to protect your country by sending the feeling of fear.
  2. Study on these can allow us to find hidden secrets on nature also.
  
  Getting into the physical reality of the world today, I see that you can't trust people having powers, therefore, I believe there is no harm in keeping you equipped.
  
  I think the government should make policies that even if they create something spectacular, there should be plan to test them. I mean to say that they test their weapons say only once in 50 years. That would allow the waste to be disposed in a better way.
  
  The thing about testing is that when these weapons are tested, they are not tested at their full power but at a very low, say like 5% - 10%. That means they do create nuclear waste but in a very less quantity.
  
  I don't say that testing is good and should be conducted on frequent basis. But if someone does make a new change, it should be allowed to be tested in a small range.
  
  The fear of nuclear weapons can even stop war between 2 countries.
  
  Theoretically these are wrong, but practically they are needed.
  
  Hey but one thing I wanna make clear, I am not saying that countries should get in arms race lol.
• 

  Ashraf HZ

  Yes, thats the aim for deterrence.. but what happens when the equilibrium is disturbed? Thats the reason why the Russians got angry with US's missile defense system, since theoretically the US would be protected against any ballistic attack while allowing themselves to launch at their own whim. This would naturally cause an arms race.
  
  We would always want to maintain the equilibrium.. but, if the chance arises, others would develop much more deadly weapons. Do we want this to happen? I'm no pacifist, all nations have the right to have defenses. But where do we draw the line? The last thing we'd want our future generation to face is another world war.
  
  So much for the aim of helping make the world a better place 😉
• 

  Mayur Pathak

  Nuclear weapons are probably one of the reasons for destruction. If we are banning or regulating nuclear research, we should look at banning almost all the advanced weapons of mass destruction being researched these days. We build defense forces to ward off the possible enemies. We try to better each other and in the process go on developing the most advanced machinery of mass destruction.
  
  Nuclear research is goo if it is used only for the purpose of making the world a better livable place. Nuclear power is one of the most important factor for a well lit future. But if we go by all the side effects of the nuclear testing... it is certainly bad.
• 

  sauravgoswami

  Nuclear research has vast application although Nuclear weapons has been celebrated,nuclear applications in medecine,power,engineering etc is always welcomed and research in weapons should be limited as stopping them altogether means encouraging other countries against us!!!
• 

  kashish0711

  Nuclear weapons cannot be uninvented. Nor can we assume that their role in strategic deterrence will never change and maybe in the near future they could be considered as part of a coordinated national security program that employs diplomacy, arms control initiatives, and conventional forces to optimize stability and peace in the world.
  
  But I think this can be only line to conclude the debate.
  
  "The nuclear age is far from over."
  
• 

  sauravgoswami

  Measures have been taken to deterrent them but they have failed,and no country including the super powers can risk to destroy their nukes,only if we can invent a weapon of mess destruction more effective then nuclear then we can definately give away with nuclear weapon testing and development!!!