Could nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons being falling into the hands of dangerous.
terrorist groups? This sounds like a scenario that is played out all too often by Hollywood.
directors, but is it a reality, and society may not even realize it. Since the fall of the Soviet.
Union it is feared by many that weapons of mass destruction have been left unmonitored.
and have been recovered by dangerous groups. All of this happening right under the.
United States" (and the rest of the world) nose. Not until recently have nations begun to.
notice. September 11, 2001, and events following, has opened everybody's eyes to the.
very real threat of terrorism.
The US and other countries have built up tremendous nuclear arsenals, but is it a.
threat to world peace; or would removing/ reducing them lead to more threats against.
national security? If the US government were to somehow eliminate its arsenal, it would.
only be encouraging advisaries to get the nuclear "leg up" on us (Myers 1). Not only.
would it leave the nation vulnerable to a quick and devastating attack from other nuclear.
nations, but it would also cost the tax payers a good bit. Everybody should know that.
building a bomb costs money, but also destroying a bomb can cost money too. If.
eliminating the nuclear arsenal would threaten national defenses why should it be done.
(Myers 2)? Tax payer's money should be spent on more defensive weapons, not offensive.
weapons (Myers 1 ). Most of America pays their taxes, without totally understanding.
where that money goes. It goes into social security, disability, welfare, and many other.
beneficial programs. A percentage of that which comes in through taxes will go into.
building better and more powerful bombs, which the Government tries extremely hard at.
not using. The fact of the matter is, the world's nations are the only threat to peace, not.
the funding and creation of bombs (Myers 1).
The United States government worked for many years to find vaccines for many of.