Nuclear weapons do we really need them? In a time where education is accessible, should we continue to rely on barbaric threats of nuclear attacks in order to keep the peace or should we sit down with one another and negotiate on issues we may be having with each other. In a post made by “Now This” introduces an organization which is fighting for the abolishment of using, test and even creating nuclear weapons.

“Now This” publishes a wide range of posts from politics to outstanding civil actions. Their audience ranges from teenagers both male and female to adults and elderly people. In the post they introduced the organization “The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons” (ican), throughout the video the director of the organization Beatrice Fihn discusses and he negative effects that the use of nuclear weapons can have on the woman’s health. The video showing Mrs. Fihn in a professional environment, but then changes to different pictures of victims and the horrible effects that nuclear radiation has had on them when she begins to talk about those negative effects. She then goes on to discuss the treaty they helped create along with the tremendous support they have obtained from different organizations from 101countries.

Nuclear weapons had been in development since the spring of 1940 by the Germans and were brought to the attention to president Roosevelt by Einstein, Winston Churchill, and other physicist in fear that the Germans would create a weapon of mass destruction and use it on the Allied forces. Einstein along with many of his colleges sent president Roosevelt a letter describing the effects it would have not only on the environment but also on the people that were to inhabit the area it would be used in. They stated “The blast from such an explosion would destroy life in a wide area…even for days after the explosion any person any person entering the affected area will be killed” (Cirincione Pg.3), the physicists knew what would happen if this weapon were to be used but even with that knowledge they continued to support and urge the creation of a weapon of that power. Radiation exposure of that level can cause possible chromosomal damage, Serious radiation sickness, destruction of bone marrow and
intestines…etc.( which all leads to a slow and miserable death.


“Now This” posts this video to try to inform their audience of this organization and persuade them to join it by displaying the organization as something that everyone should support. The video builds its credibility by establishing that the organization(ican) as a professional and selfless. They continue building their credibility by introducing their director Beatrice Fihn who is also a jurist showing that she has a great understanding of how to write and interpret laws. The environment that they interview Mrs. Fihn is portrayed as very professional thus making the audience believe that the organization truly is credible. Another way they try to gain the trust of the audience is by showing and making it apparent that the organization won the noble peace prize for the year 2017. All of these actions build credibility not only for the organization but also for the group that released the video “Now This”. This will possibly lead the audience of “Now This” to believe what they say and post.

Secondly the post appeals to the sympathy of the woman and men in the audience when the director Beatrice Fihn begins discussing the many different ways that it affects the reproductive systems of women and just leads to unneeded deaths of many civilians. They continue their appeal to our sympathy when they begin to show pictures of children suffering from those negative effects of too much radiation from the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The appeal to emotion in the video post causes the audience to demand change as soon as possible, since humans rely on their emotions for many decisions and actions. The video then begins to change the appeal of sympathy to an appeal of disgust when Mrs. Fihn criticizes the political leaders of countries by saying “and this kind of idea that somehow indiscriminately slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians will be a better alternative than sitting down and negotiating. I mean it’s ridiculous”. (NowThis Her) it also shows how they continue to portray themselves as a selfless organization who cares about the safety of people by preventing the creation an or use of nuclear weapons. They then appeal to peoples urge for peace and safety amongst the many different countries by showing the audience that the organization(ican) is currently involved in different governments, trying to convince every country to sign and join the treaty thus making them give up their nuclear weapons so that the looming fear of nuclear destruction can disappear.

The video post appeals to the audience’s logic when they describe the proven medical diagnosis of “they range from miscarriages, stillbirth, completely destroy the reproductive system, even causing the child to be born with different diseases” (Nowthis Her), this gives the audience something to take in and see whether keeping nuclear weapons as a possible way to deal with enemies is worth negatively affecting hundreds of thousands of men and women lives. They also use present the information that the organization(ican) that the current leaders in power and their norms are associated with toxic masculinity that is associated harm to society and men themselves, they use this to make people realize how many of the current political figures focus on how people see their masculinity rather than focusing on the safety of the people they are governing over. The current political leader we have does seem to focus more on how people see him than actually trying to better not only the alliances we have with other countries but also unifying the people that make up the United States of America. The organization(ican) poses President Trump as a possible threat to their over goal of making the abolishment of nuclear weapons an international law because he has proposed to increase the USA’s nuclear arsenal tenfold, they counter his decision by stating that sitting down and negotiating would be a much better alternative to using nuclear weapons and slaughtering many innocent individuals. That logically appeals to many people because many people believe that the loss of innocent human lives is horrible and should be avoided at all costs, thus strengthening the organization’s credibility as selfless yet once again.

The topic of nuclear armament is still highly talked about today with people on both sides providing arguments for their sides like people who are supporting nuclear armament by saying “we should have nuclear weapons for protection just in case another country were to attack us”, although it seems like a good and reasonable argument there will always be that fear looming over people worrying whether they’re going to be attacked at any second. The argument for banning the usage, testing and creation of nuclear weapons seems to be the most promising argument since it eliminates the threat and fear of being attacked by another country thus spreading peace of mind and helping not only the US society but every other society that may be in fear of being attacked as well. The banning of all nuclear weapons would also free up a lot of money for the national budget which in turn could be used for many other programs such as public welfare, better financial aid for college students etc.… Living in a world knowing where anyone is susceptible to a nuclear attack leads people to rash decision making which can negatively affect many people, so just the looming fear of being attacked is one of the various negative effects having possession of weapons of mass destruction can have. If more people and more countries were to support the organization(ican) the world would be able to enjoy a lifetime of peace and calmness of the mind, people won’t be worrying about the possible pending wars, or countries spending millions on the production of these weapons. What is most frightening of all is that many of the large and powerful countries refuse to abide of accept the terms and conditions of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, according to the organization ican “…  failed to fulfil its legally binding disarmament obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty”(ican) this applies to not only the US but also Russia, The United Kingdom and China this is shocking because if they are willing to break their legal bindings many of the countries will not be trustworthy and deals made with other counties will not be taken seriously or will not be made at all due to those actions. Although the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is a small victory leading to the overall goal of nuclear disarmament it does not completely ban all nuclear weapons thus not being as effective as the treaty that Ican has helped pass amongst the many different countries. I believe a world without nuclear weapons is worth sacrifice, but only with sacrifice can things be accomplished and agreed upon… do you?

















Annotated Bibliography

Cirincione, Joseph. “Bomb Scare.” Google Books, 2007, The Book “Bomb Scare” deals with the topic of the creation of nuclear weapons and how we see them today, why we have them today. I used this source to show the proven effects that the use of nuclear weapons can have on people.

“Positions on the Treaty.” ICAN, The website showed many of the countries and nations that have joined the treaty to ban nuclear weapons. I used the website to see what countries have  and have not joined the treaty along with extra information to what they may have failed to do or abide by through the process.

“Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) – UNODA.” United Nations, United Nations, The website talks about some agreements have been agreed upon by different nations not only in the UN but also worldwide, it serves as a stepping stone to achieving total nuclear disarmament. I used this website as background to explain what treaties some countries failed to abide by and failed to follow.

Roberts, Brad. The case for U.S. nuclear weapons in the 21st century. Stanford Security Studies, an Imprint of Stanford University Press, 2016. The book talks about many of the views nuclear weapons has obtained historically, morally politically etc. I used this source as background on the many different views on nuclear weapons and their possible use.

Yoshihara, Toshi, and James R. Holmes. Strategy in the second nuclear age: power, ambition, and the ultimate weapon. Georgetown University Press, 2012. The book talks about how the spread of nuclear weapons is expanding to many different countries and the reinforcing of nuclear arsenals by many powerful countries like the USA, Russia, and China. I used this source as background knowledge for analyzing possible future trends if states were to not support and or agree with the treaty to ban nuclear weapons.