The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Subs

Nuclear submarines are fueled with nuclear energy as well as carrying nuclear torpedos on board. They are more cost efficient as well, compared to air independent propulsion (AIP) submarine in the long run. As stated by the Military and General Security, nuclear submarines cost $2 billion to maintain for life. AIP subs have a total endurance of forty-five to ninety days compared to the ninety to a hundred days by a nuclear weapon sub. The nuclear weapon sub could endure longer limited by the factor of food storage for the crew. The crew is not harmed by the nuclear factors on the nuclear subs.
Ngo 6
Nuclear subs are much faster than the AIP subs as well as more suitable for the ocean. A nuclear sub could run from twenty to twenty-five knots

Nuclear weapons are a key device to show off to the world that their nation has the capabilities of economic stability and money to produce weaponry to hold against the world. These devices guarantee security as it is the final stage of veto towards of aggression (Miller 1). A country that is able to provide security, guarantees the ability to ally with other countries, protecting a non-nuclear state giving the ability to provide economic and military assistance. To own nuclear weapons shows that a nuclear-armed state has some value of economic stability. For example, if the Pakistani State were to crumble, the worst series of development imaginable would be terrorists abducting nuclear arsenals. As the terrorists would use to threaten other countries instigating chaos; however, safety is assured to the people that nuclear arsenals are easily disabled. Including the constant checkups, an arsenal needs require excessive knowledge about it. Thus, if one were to steal one from a manufacturing site, would be difficult to go unnoticed (Tepperman 2). Therefore, economic stability is necessary for a nuclear state like Pakistan or North Korea because when stability is lost, control of weapons is lost as

Consider that previously there was an undetected sixty-five feet wide asteroid, that detonated in mid-air over the Russian City of Chelyabinsk. This explosion of the rock, injured 1500 people and 7000 buildings. Imagine if the rock that hit the dinosaurs sixty-five million years were to recur but times more damage. Therefore, there are companies like NASA trying to make use of nuclear arsenals to nudge asteroids off their course to prevent collision with Earth (Wall 1). These weapons are considered the top of the list to use for asteroid impact, especially for the larger ones and in little warning time. It is one of the practical and cost effective options including that it is cheaper to launch into space due to large amounts of energy unit per mass. The day NASA launches a nuke at an asteroid, “You wouldn’t be able to measure the difference on Earth. The explosion would occur millions of miles out in space, where there is already an intense radiation environment” (Zyga 1). Thus, it would be perfectly safe for the people on Earth to not worry about radiation effects. Bong Wie, at Iowa State the director of the Asteroid Defense Research Consortium, the computer simulates, that with a thirty-day precaution warning of a 1000 foot wide asteroid, the nuclear weapon could neutralize it before it enters the Earth’s gravitational field. Wie says that if the government/scientists ignore the fact