Topic: Social Essay

[jverkoey]

Writing this for a social essay.  I'm hoping to get a good mark on it as it's a replacement essay, so I wouldn't mind someone maybe skimming it and telling me anything I need to improve.  I have to print it off before the end of the night as I have to hand it in tomorrow morning.

Thanks in advance.

The topic of the essay being: To what extent should the world rely on deterrants as a method of keeping peace?

Jeff Verkoeyen

Deterrents in Today’s Society

   Earth today is an interesting place to be.  We as the human race have existed for thousands of years, co-existing on many different levels and many different races.  Until recently, the human race has retained an atmosphere of a mutually balanced ecosystem.  Nowadays, and especially in the past 100 years, we have noticed a magnificent leap in mankind’s abilities.  We’ve gone from cooling our food with ice blocks delivered weekly to being within fractions of degrees to absolute zero; from horse-drawn buggies to the X-Prize (an international contest aimed at having a private team design, build, and fly a manned rocket in to space twice within one month of each flight).  Even from cavalry to the modern-day self-driven robot systems being used in urban combat.  Mankind as a whole has advanced in so many ways and so quickly, one has to wonder if the power we have gained as a race is too overwhelming.

   Society forty years ago was much different from the world we live in today.  Many people lived in fear of what would best be described as: the end of the world.  The two superpowers at the time had developed enough of a nuclear arsenal that at any point, if one country or the other decided to attack, it surely meant the destruction of a great deal of humankind.  If it were not for many of the chance happenings and the two superpowers never directly engaging in combat, our world as we know it today never could have existed.

   I truly believe that deterrents as a method of peace works on the same principle as terrorism.  “You will be safe as long as you do not look at me weird, in which case I’ll blow up your house, your city, and maybe even your nation.”  Because of this, are deterrents truly justified as a method of maintaining “peace” so to speak?  I don’t believe so.  True, the deterrents of mutually assured destruction in the 20th century helped provide somewhat of an overall “peace” sensation, but terror can only last for so long and is far from a permanent solution.  Now that we are in to the 21st century, we see that the results of using deterrents as a method of piece only provides more alternatives against peace in the end.  With more and more countries gaining access to nuclear arms, can we truly say the world is at peace when at any given time, one madman could potentially destroy a country or two?

   I quote John F. Kennedy: “What kind of peace do we seek? I am talking about a genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living. Not merely peace in our time, but peace in all time. Our problems are man-made; therefore they can be solved by man. For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet, we all breath the same air, we all cherish our children's future, and we are all mortal.”  I truly agree with Kennedy’s viewpoint on the matter of peace.  Peace is not something that can merely be held in a whimsical state of fear for the destruction of Earth.  Especially in the case of the Cold War, mutually assured destruction may provide a temporary peace, but the aftermaths of such a “peace” only lead to more violence.

   True, there were many peace settlements that came about because of the Cold War, and relatively speaking the world is more “at peace” than it was during the Cold War.  However, because of the USSR disbanding, we now see an uprising in numerous individual groups causing more centralized acts of violence around the world.  Living in North America gives us the nice ability to go to bed without much fear for a bomb exploding on our house or getting on a bus without fearing it being blown up by a man who’s had enough listening to people talk about “peace.”

   Our world today is an interesting one; with thousands of people fearing their lives every day while thousands more are privileged enough to live in society without fear.  In my view, deterrents as a method of peace keeping is purely a quick-and-dirty to a long term problem.  Deterrents on the scale of which was seen in the Cold War era should not be used in today’s society, for it only causes people to be forced to live in a fearful society where every day is just another chance day where the world hasn’t been destroyed yet.  All in all, humankind today has advanced well enough to be able to imagine much more effective, and safer methods of peacekeeping and deterrents than nuclear destruction.

[ygfperson]

before i say anything, i'm just looking over this with a critical eye so don't take offense to anything i say

"co-existing on many different levels and many different races"
why levels and races? doesn't make sense

"Society forty years ago was much different from the world we live in today. Many people lived in fear of what would best be described as: the end of the world."
It makes sense kinda, although I wouldn't use the colon.

". Living in North America gives us the nice ability to go to bed without much fear for a bomb exploding on our house or getting on a bus without fearing it being blown up by a man who’s had enough listening to people talk about “peace.”"
too long-winded for one sentence

"Now that we are in to the 21st century, we see that the results of using deterrents as a method of piece only provides more alternatives against peace in the end."
how so?

overall, you state that the world shouldn't rely on deterrence without describing what deterrence is. you should explain more on the thought processes of the governments of america and russia (ie: why bombing the other would suck for them), public disapproval at home, what a bunch of nuclear bombs would actually do to the enviroment that makes it so devastating, etc.

you should also add more examples of deterrence used in the past and what deterrence would be used for today.

"All in all, humankind today has advanced well enough to be able to imagine much more effective, and safer methods of peacekeeping and deterrents than nuclear destruction."
this is a pretty grand statement that's pretty much equivalent to "we should know better than to war on each other".

on the plus side, your essay uses a lot of imagery and it flows reasonably well

"Especially in the case of the Cold War, mutually assured destruction may provide a temporary peace, but the aftermaths of such a “peace” only lead to more violence."
i guess if you wanted to get technical, the whole world would be at peace after a nuclear war. and explain what you mean by "aftermaths". you mean like the vietnam war as fighting against communism, or something post-cold war like the problems of reunification in germany?

good luck!

[jverkoey]

Thanks, all critical stuff helps so it'll only be used to further improve my essay!