For as long as I can remember, I've had an interest in everything pertaining to the US Military. This stems from my grandfather being involved in World War II, and that inspired me to be interested in the banishment of nuclear weapons debate. This is why I have decided to argue why US, and other countries with nuclear capabilities, should ban all nuclear arsenal. The question has an affect on, whether you know it or not, and that is because of the constant threat of nuclear warfare. As long the United States and Russia hold these nuclear weapons, along with a constant tension that has lasted decades, there can be a sudden nuclear war that would cause a massive loss of human life. Although I have no personal experience with the controversy, I have constantly paid attention to the growing tensions around the world through many different news sources, and it feels nearly personal when US is formally threatened by the North Korea with an impending nuclear attack. Most of what the North Korean leaders claim is deceitful, but this is still very unsettling. With the use of my US military and nuclear weaponry knowledge I can write on this topic well.  

Alan Robock, a Distinguished Professor of Climate Science at Rutgers University, is an advocate of the movement to ban all nuclear weapons. He defends his position using his background in the climate sciences by saying any use of these nuclear weapons in open warfare will cause such a harsh nuclear winter that that most of the world population will die of starvation. It seems very hard to argue against Robock, because he claims that every human has a stake in this argument. He does this by plainly stating that the nuclear winter caused by this nuclear warfare will kill off most if not all plants. This will slowly dwindle the world population, and this winter would also last many years. With his background in Climate Science at a state university I believe that Robock has the proper credentials to be speaking on such a topic. His background in climate sciences leads to bias towards banishment, but he backs up his belief with strong evidence that neither side could deny. 

My second source is an article written by the creators of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. This article was split into three different parts that are their main reasons why all nuclear weapons should be banned around the world. First, the humanitarian case that outlines all of the different affects these weapons have on the human body. Secondly, the environmental case lists all of the catastrophic affects that these weapons have on the worlds climate, including nuclear winter, and food shortage. Then, the economic case that outlines all of the money spent nuclear weapons even though none of these weapons are every used. The ICANW acknowledges that the entire human population is at stake when nuclear weapons are involved. However, there is obvious bias since this is from a campaign website, but this bias helps with the use of the fear factor with help from credible statistics. 

My third source comes from a speech from an Associate professor at the University of Queensland, Australia. She fights those who believe nuclear weapons are necessary with her expertise in international security, and nuclear arms. She sets out a list of counter argument at the beginning of her speech, and then continues to disprove all of them to the best of her ability. She puts most of the blame on the major worlds leaders, and puts the stakes on them. She then by extension says that all of these people under their power are in constant danger of nuclear war, and goes on to say that this makes no sense because the people have no say pertaining to what type of conflicts their country gets in to. The speaker, Marianne Hanson, has an extensive background in the research of International security, and nuclear arms control she has very good credentials for this topic. This research could give her some bias towards banishment, but this also uses the fear factor which is very effective within the nuclear weapon debate with the help of credible evidence.  

As these numbers of nuclear weapons climb there are bound to be a large group of people that do not believe it should be this way. Since this question has everyone at stake it is a very arguable question, and depending on who you talk to you could hear very many different things. Many of my sources agreed that one of the man pro nuclear weapons arguments can be handled very easily. This argument being that having the weapons means we have nuclear security from these other nuclear countries. However, this arguments logic means nothing if you banned all of the nuclear weapons. Out of my three sources I did not see any disagreements because they all leaned toward the same side. After this assignment I do not think I will revise my research question, because there are many different people writing on this topic.
