Hi, I have bought pack of 6 CATs from MGMAT. I don't know whether that qualifies my essays for a review from MGMAT staff. However, I am posting my response to the AWA section of MGMAT CAT 1. I would really appreciate a feedback.
"Nuclear weapons are potentially more devastating than any other weapon in human history. We must stop pointing the nuclear gun at our own heads. The best way to lower the threat of nuclear war is for the nuclear capable nations, including the U.S., to lead by example and dismantle their own nuclear arsenals."
The issue is whether dismantling of nuclear arsenals by nuclear capable nations is the only way to lower the threat of a nuclear war. The author is of the point of view that nuclear weapons are potentially more devastating than any other weapon in the human history and nuclear capable nations should lead by example and dismantle their own nuclear arsenals. The author addresses a genuine concern which is very much relevant to the future of mankind. However, given the lack of trust among the nations, the approach suggested by author sounds impractical. I do not agree with the author as she undermines the threat from other weapons which have been used far more frequently in contrast to nuclear weapons. The fact that a nuclear attack was responsible for putting an end to world war II goes against the author's opinion.
Firstly, for a nation, dismantling nuclear arsenals is not as easy as it sounds. There is a severe lack of trust among the nations which compete for an authoritative superiority in the world. Cold war is a perfect example to illustrate this fact. The U.S. and the Soviet Union were in a deadlock. Each was threatened by a possible nuclear attack from the other. The author's suggestion that nuclear capable nations should lead by example and dismantle their own nuclear arsenals poses a grave national security threat. The prerequisite to such a step is to create an atmosphere of trust and harmony among all the nations. As long as such an atmosphere is lacking, there is a possibility of any one nuclear capable nation turning hostile and that would pose an even greater danger to the mankind.
Moreover, although nuclear weapons are more devastating than any other weapon developed so far, they are the most rarely used weapons. In fact there has been a single incident of use of nuclear weapons in the history. I think there is a greater need to avoid wars than to dismantle nuclear weapons.
Finally, the author has missed a very relevant historical fact that a nuclear attack ended the world war II. Japan was on an attacking spree and would have continued had the U.S. not gone for a nuclear attack. I am certainly not advocating a nuclear attack as the best possible way to end a war, but at times that might be the last line of defence left with a nation.
In sum, the author's point of view is driven by a grave threat this world is facing from nuclear weapons. However, the approach suggested by the author is certainly not the best possible solution available and in fact it might not be a solution for most of the countries. Dismantling nuclear weapons is not enough to save the mankind from mass destruction as the technological advancements yielding more threatning weapons such as biological weapons. The need of the hour is to create a congenial environment across the world so as to avoid the use of any kind of weapons whatsoever. Until such a harmony is achieved, mass destruction weapons will keep serving nations as their last line of defense.
*********************
Argument Essay is in my next post
***********************