1

John Califf
UWRT 1101
Ms. Jamie Burgess
December 1, 2014

Rhetorical Analysis
Many people argue whether or not the use of nuclear weapons is morally acceptable.
Personally I think that they are while others tend to think that they are sometimes morally
acceptable only if they are not used as a first source. They will say that if nothing else is
working to get your point across that then and only then can you go to the use of nuclear
weapons. The first time that the United States saw the use of nuclear weapons was when we
bombed Nagasaki and Hiroshima during the Second World War (1939-1945). The use of
nuclear weapons at this time to get the United States point across was looked down upon by
many. The use of these nuclear weapons killed a total of 166,000 people in Hiroshima and a
total of 80,000 in Nagasaki. This was very detrimental to the growth of Japan, yet it got our
point across and Japan ended up surrendering to the Allied Powers.
Others believe that the use of nuclear weapons is not morally acceptable because if we
use them they might end up setting of a nuclear war, a war that could wipe out a vast majority of
the world, that not only killed soldiers but also civilians. A threat of nuclear war was seen during
the Cuban missile crisis. This was a time when the Soviets decided to take nuclear weapons and
place them in Cuba with the United States as a target. They tried to use the killing of civilians as
a way to show people that it is immoral to use nuclear weapons. Nuclear warheads can kill
civilians in more than one way. They can bring death to them by either them being hit by the

warhead or even from the burns and radiation given off by the weapon. These warheads give off
radiation which can kill not only the people that it comes into contact with but also peoples
offspring. It can cause birth defects in the next generations of people which shows how they can
be morally unacceptable.
The article that I have chosen also uses the fact they a war can break out not from a
human launching the weapon but also if there were to be a mechanical failure and the weapon
were to set itself off (Is Nuclear Deterrence Morally Acceptable?). Something as simple as a
mechanical failure could cause another world wide war. This could happen because odds are
that one country would not believe another if they were to claim a mechanical failure. This is
where peoples morality comes into play. A certain country could set off a warhead and then
blame a mechanical failure for the launching of the weapon. This would be immoral because
they would be lying about the cause for the weapon being launched and it is slightly possible that
the other country would believe this. The reason why there could be a mechanical failure is
because these weapons are not exactly recallable because there is no way to carefully test them.
In order for something to be recalled it first needs to be tested which is virtually impossible with
nuclear weapons. While the article that I read had good examples of nuclear weapons being
morally wrong it also presented sides that showed how it was morally acceptable to use nuclear
weapons if they are for self-defense.
Some have suggested testing nuclear weapons by setting them off with the ocean as a
target which is another immorality that this article shows. This would cause an even greater
effect than if we were to use them on a country. That is so because not only would it kill almost
all of the animals in the sea that God created but it would also have the possibility for the
reactants to enter our drinking water. This would and up effecting more people over a long

period of time rather than a short fast attack by setting the warhead off on a specific target or
peoples. This would not be morally acceptable because you are killing a group of animals or
people who did not deserve to die making a wrong and bad decision which is really what
morality comes down to in the end. In order for something to be moral it needs to have a good
outcome and involve right and or good behavior as the driving force behind it. Presenting this
argument with a now emotional appeal can help those who are more emotional connect to the
argument that is being proposed.
Some people are more moved or can connect more to the emotional aspect of things.
This article gives an appeal to both those who can connect to a more emotional aspect and also to
those who can relate to an argument that has more logical thinking inside it. It is not very biased
in how it is written so it is more open to letting the reader decide how they feel about the subject
while giving them examples of both the morally acceptable and immoral qualities of the
argument. While researching about this topic a year or two ago this was very evident to me in
the article.
Oddly enough nuclear weapons can also be used in moral ways. Say that one country
were to be trying to take over the world and the only way to stop them was to use nuclear
weapons. Yes it might not be the best answer but if that country were to become too powerful
and look as if they could take over the world then it would be morally acceptable to use nuclear
weapons to take them down. This would most likely lessen the deaths of humans which would
be a good thing. This could lessen the deaths of humans because who knows what that country
would do with all the power they gained. They could both keep the world the same or most
likely try and change the world which would probably result in a vast majority of humans being

wiped out. They could either be wiped out by trying to revolt against the country that is taking
over or that could have been the countrys plan the whole time.
Another way that nuclear warheads can be used morally is by using them to flex. This
could be morally acceptable because you are not actually using them but you are showing them
off. This can be useful if a country were to try and intimidate another country. This can be used
to out down that intimidation by them simply flexing or showing off the weapons that their
country is capable of using against them. Now if that said country were to actually use their
nuclear weapons when they are intimidated then the whole situation would be changed and then
become immoral.
If a country were to use their nuclear warheads against another countrys army then that
could be seen as morally acceptable. That could be morally acceptable because they are not
killing civilians. If they are just killing another nations army then that is fine because those
people signed knowing that they could possibly have nuclear weapons used on them. It is in
intentions of trying to stop the war and nit just one country lashing out on another for no reason.
Whether or not a country is killing civilians is when morality is really challenged because
without them being in the army they are lashing out upon another nation or country.
With going back to who is fired on is a main point of morality. Some say that the
use of nuclear weapons is morally acceptable and some say that their use is not morally
acceptable and they are both right. Amazingly it can be both at the same time that is so because
yes you might be targeting a military source but you cannot control who gets the effects on
hundred percent of the time. The reactants can get in the water and harm many other people
other than who the main target is. Also the radiation can affect others than those who are

targeted. It all just comes down to how they are used and who they effect short term and also
long term.