When a lone B-29 flew over Hiroshima on August 29, 1945, the first nuclear weapon changed the course of international trust and relations. From that point on, countries tried to control each other with building and stockpiling superior nuclear arms. The question of nuclear limitations and of nuclear disarmament finally came under world review. The idea of one country possessing enough firepower to destroy the world is thoughtprovoking, but a look at the nuclear proponents brings up several good points. The concept of a world free of nuclear energy and weapons would shock most people. Nuclear power has existed for quite some time and has provided valuable services. If the structure of nuclear programs, weapons, research, and power plants, was removed, the world would be thrown into a state of political and economic imbalance. The failure of the five nuclear countries, U.S., Russia, Britain, France, and China, to remain vigilant in their threat of nuclear power would cause third world countries to challenge the position of the five countries and bully their foes. The thought of nuclear disarmament is useless. Stability of peace, power, and trust are results of competition in the nuclear arms race of the two most powerful nuclear countries.The coalition of trust between countries considered to be a superpower by showing economic and militaristic power has kept other less powerful countries from acting rashly or blindly. Such was the case with Saddam Hussein when he invaded Kuwait. The severe involvement of the U.S. and the minimal involvement by the U.N.s posed a serious threat to the Iraqs well-being. If Iraq provoked the U.S. enough, we might have turned to nuclear arms and solved the matter conclusively. By having nuclear presence in the world with two or more superpower countries, they can combat the threat of dictatorship and its expansion, instead of having a single indecisive group such as the U.N. controlling the arms. T...
