Skip to main content

Should every country be given a right to possess weapons of war?

Note: This post is not a complete essay but will help you brainstorm to write one.

In the question like this, it would at first seem that possessing weapons by every country would be undesirable or even dangerous especially for the proponents (or advocates) of peace and harmony. However, I would take the side of ‘yes’ and show you how we can have stronger points from that perspective.

First of all, which body is there to grant or take away the right of the countries to possess weapons? As far as I know, there is no such body which can dictate which country can possess weapons and which can’t. So, this question in itself is a hypothetical question.

Again if such rights are granted to some nations and prohibited for others wouldn't it be an unfair act? Obviously and hence such provisions will arise “equality” issues among the nations. Therefore, only viable alternatives will be to either allow all nations to possess the weapons or disallow all of them for the same. Now, if we disallow all of the countries to possess the weaponry again there will be an issue of “trust”. How can the countries be sure that the other countries do not secretly possess the arms and ammunition of war? There is either a difficult way or no way to know this. Therefore, allowing the countries to have weapons would be a better alternative.

Furthermore, if such rights aren't granted, then there will be a huge debate on who will enforce such law that prohibits the right to possess weapons. If for example, an individual country took such a position to disallow other countries in possessing weapons then that country might abuse its power. Again, if the INGOs like the United Nations took charge of this responsibility then it will still be untrustworthy for all nations because of the possibility of bias such as favouring one country over another and allowing it to possess weapons. In other words, such organizations would also not be completely trusted by all nations. So, there will be a huge debate as the issue is quite sensitive one.

Even if they succeed in gaining the trust of all nations and reached a consensus that no one will produce weaponry, the implementation of this agreement will be skeptical. Moreover, such a law becomes an opportunity to nations with evil intentions. While the rest of the world destroys its weapons, such nations will start to build weapons even more aggressively, to materialize their evil cause as soon as possible. So, this law will essentially leave a huge security hole. However, more realistically, even if such consensus is reached and enacted, almost all the countries will secretly further their weapon research because they assume that other countries are also doing so and that they might pose threat to them in the future. Therefore, every country should be given the right to own weapons.

Granting rights to produce weapons will not be as much a vice as we think of it. Since, all countries will be investing some of their resources in weaponry, all will possess weapons. However, no country will be able to estimate the power of other nations exactly. Because of this reason no country will try to start war with other countries. However, even if one or two power-obsessed countries try to conquer another country, the entire world will be polarized against such nations because such countries will be a source of threat to all other countries. Therefore, they will all support the weaker nations and pressurize the powerful nation to setback. So, there will ultimately be peace and people will be safer this way.

Therefore, by all means, I think that every country should be given a right to possess the weapons of war.


  1. organisation* 4th paragraph
    Hi to all my friends reading this btw :v


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Probable Questions for October/November 2015

(Image Credit: Unknown) A continuity to the Tradition: Like in the past, I am attempting to predict (so to say) questions that could show up in the upcoming October/November examination of 2015. Disclaimer First: These predictions are in no way scientific or really probable. Justification: However, these could be some topics you could brainstorm and practice upon, in order to prepare for your General Paper exams.

Consider the view that the key to good health is not medicine, but lifestyle

Image by Irina L from Pixabay "Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing, not merely an absence of disease or infirmity." - World Health Organization. This definition of health in its broadest sense implies that curing of physical diseases and abnormalities alone cannot earn us a good health. Can medicines go beyond curing diseases, to improve our health on the mental and social grounds? The medicines for the mental diseases, like depression, might improve our mental and social health to some extent; however, good health in its broadest sense can only be achieved through improved lifestyle.

Probable Question for Oct/Nov 2012

Disclaimer Notice First First of all, I would like to share something with you: I have tried to guess probable questions like this for four sessions with this one being the latest and in my past guess-works, what I have experienced is that most of the students blindly rely on them and prepare only on the topic areas listed here. And when the questions do not fall from the areas I have listed there they simply show aggression. One person wrote in my Facebook Group in a satirical manner that, “100% questions were asked from my predicted topics.” Now, read an article on another blog. Ms Adrienne de Souza writes how students get tricked by reading probable questions. She frankly says that her predictions have been wrong before , like mine! And I've always included "a note of warning/disclaimer" in each of the earlier predictions.