Some people believe that nuclear weapon is the solution to world peace. Others, however, think that they only cause conflicts. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

In the present era, having atomic bombs is a debatable issue. Some societies argue that those technologies can be used to prevent global conflicts.

Nevertheless

, another group believes that a number of problems

such

as clashes can happen when many states hold these weapons. In the following paragraphs, I will detail those paradigms and explain why the first notion is more logical.

To begin

with, when the main powers have radioactive warfare, they will keep away from direct conflicts. It happens because there is a notion that every party will be damaged massively when those destructive gadgets are used.

Consequently

, after World War II ended, there were no massive wars which involved the main countries which own plutonium weapons.

In other words

, these uranium artillery have prevented unnecessary conflicts among main powers.

For example

, during the Cold War, the USA and Soviet Union were never involved in the same battlefields because they knew that their enemies had nuclear features.

Nevertheless

, future warfare can always happen if the owned nuclear nations use non-diplomatic ways to obliterate several problems among other states.

For instance

, North Korea always releases a bunch of ultimatums to other states after they gained success in the nuclear weapon test.

As a result

, global wars in the upcoming era cannot be obliterated when a number of countries always prefer to use militaristic approaches as a way to obliterate existing problems among them. In conclusion, I consider explaining that making a peaceful world can be achieved when nuclear technologies are owned by some superpowers based on the fact that there were no global wars after World War II.

Nevertheless

, there should be a regulation to control countries which owned those gadgets in order to prevent them from using these destructive weapons.