Nuclear Agreement

threatened. It is calculated that all life on earth would be annihilated by a hundred nuclear missiles. The U.S. possesses 7000 missiles in the total roundly 15000 missiles known to exist. What do we do with that amount of nuclear arms? We need an agreement for a nuclear proliferation right now and a complete elimination in the near future!

Back in post World War II, deterrence theory was adopted by Russia and the U.S. to produce as many nukes as they can. The historical evidence has proved that nuclear deterrence did not contribute to war-avoidance during the Cold War. Both Soviet Union and The U.S. had known that nuclear war was unattainable to victory but caused devastation. Instead of creating a prevention, nuclear weapons deterrence made a gap of interrelationship and between the Soviet Union and The US. Nuclear deterrence is a complicating multilateral system that tense the relationship between many countries. However, if the system is collapsed, the outcome will remain immeasurable. The failure of the nuclear deterrence would lead to a catastrophic destruction with an unjustified cost.

Moreover, it becomes realistic that terrorist groups could attack controlling over the nuclear arm of unstable, medium-grade security countries such as Pakistan and Iran. To prevent it, they have to upgrade their own security system which costs billions of dollars. That is a tremendous amount to less developed countries. Beside a threat of terrorism, new nuclear states do not have benefits and experiences of safeguard to prevent nuclear accidents. However, the use of nuclear weapons cannot facilitate to revenge or deter terrorist organizations because of many relevant consequences. It could change the habitat of a region, cost of living, or ignite a nuclear war.

At this intense situation between countries, I strongly suggest president Trump to call for an agreement for nuclear weapon use to keep peace and union.  Because of the fact that it is impossible to eliminate nuclear arm completely, possessive countries need to deteriorate their nuclear arsenal right now to avoid any immeasurable results.

A Must for Nuclear Agreement

Since the invention of nuclear power, The Earth has never stopped to be threatened. It is calculated that all life on earth would be annihilated by a hundred nuclear missiles. The U.S. possesses 7000 missiles in the total roundly 15000 missiles known to exist. What do we do with that amount of nuclear arms? We need an agreement for a nuclear proliferation right now and a complete elimination in the near future!

Back in post World War II, deterrence theory was adopted by Russia and the U.S. to produce as many nukes as they can. The historical evidence has proved that nuclear deterrence did not contribute to war-avoidance during the Cold War. Both Soviet Union and The U.S. had known that nuclear war was unattainable to victory but caused devastation. Instead of creating a prevention, nuclear weapons deterrence made a gap of interrelationship and between the Soviet Union and The US. Nuclear deterrence is a complicating multilateral system that tense the relationship between many countries. However, if the system is collapsed, the outcome will remain immeasurable. The failure of the nuclear deterrence would lead to a catastrophic destruction with an unjustified cost.

Moreover, it becomes realistic that terrorist groups could attack controllingthe  over nuclear arm of unstable, medium-grade security countries such as Pakistan and Iran. To prevent it, they have to upgrade their own security system which costs billions of dollars. That is a tremendous amount to less developed countries. Beside a threat of terrorism, new nuclear states do not have benefits and experiences of safeguard to prevent nuclear accidents. However, the use of nuclear weapons cannot facilitate to revenge or deter terrorist organizations because of many relevant consequences. It could change the habitat of a region, cost of living, or ignite a nuclear war.

At this intense situation between countries, I strongly suggest president Trump to call for an agreement for nuclear weapon use to keep peace and union.  Because of the fact that it is impossible to eliminate nuclear arm completely, possessive countries need to deteriorate their nuclear arsenal right now to avoid any immeasurable results.

In Response to Contraceptive

On November 2nd, 2018, Luwam Ghebregiorgis published her article to support providing free contraceptives to women. She claims that women with birth controls are empowered, have better care of themselves and are less likely to be depressed and experience domestic violence. In my opinion, women who are well educated and have plans to prevent unexpected pregnancy, can live free of stresses and nervousness of being pregnant.

I agree that sex can improve ones life in every aspects. But sometimes, we can make mistakes, and unpredicted pregnancy is one of the harmful consequences. Mrs. Ghebregiorgis has successful to address the importances to have accessible and affordable contraceptives to all women. However, it is not necessary to provide solutions freely. It will lead to misuse in needed individuals, and economically abuse to take advantage on the supply.

Moreover, our women are mostly educated with a majority graduated from some highschools, or colleges. Therefore, most of American women must have talked, educated and accesed to contraceptives, such as POPs, COCs, implants, ect. However, there are many unpredictable pregnancies recored in the country. The possibility can either be abused, raped, and specifically misusage of contraceptive. It is difficult to discuss about the first two cases, but misuage of birth controls is surprisingly common in women. As a result, they will be considering to have an abortion, healthy or unhealthy. Therefore, the solution is not to make birth controls become easily accessible and affordable, but to educate and direct women to use contraceptives properly and reasonably. Once they fully understand what they putting into their body, they will become confident and live happily with no fear of being pregnant.

I do not oppose her thinking, but I do not agree with the solution. I suggest the government to subsidize for a lower contraceptive cost, and broadly direct women to use birth controls properly.

Do Not Rescind DACA

Do Not Rescind DACA

On the September 5th, 2017, President Donald Trump officially ordered the rescinding on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that has shielded around 800.000 young undocumented immigrants from deportation. In his announcement, President Trump claimed the program has brought to the U.S. many pessimistic consequences. He stated that legalizing these young people would increase the threat to the community safety and criminal security, average labor wages have been lowered and become very challenging, and the program has given many job opportunities to illegal immigrants, resulting in higher unemployment for American workers. It also would take away taxpayers billions of dollars to support the recipients. However, I believe his argument is unjustified and prejudiced.

First, he said that the program would increase the rate of crime and threaten the community safety. Yet, according to David Bier, there is around 2000 recipients have been revoked their permits due to public safety and gang related concerns. However, it is a quarter of one percent of recipients, about 35 times as many Americans have been in prison at some point before age 34. Also, all recipients would have a background check to qualify for acceptance. DACA respondents are likely to keep their status immaculate in order to be able for the renewals. There is no possible way to prevent completely crime in any community.

Second, he claimed that DACA would lower average wages and cause unemployment to Americans. In fact, these young people did not take away jobs from Americans. DACA would have no impact on the lump of labor fallacy, which means illegal employees take over jobs of Americans. Bier opposed, “From 1970 to 2017, the U.S. labor force doubled. Rather than ending up with a 50 percent unemployment rate, U.S. employment doubled. If adding workers made the economy poorer ... That’s one reason earlier efforts to restrict immigration did not produce any wage gains.”

Third, repealing DACA will not benefit taxpayers, as Trump has argued. Undocumented immigrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, even for education. They are not eligible for any federal welfares such as food stamps, medicaid, ObamaCare, financial aid, etc… Moreover, DACA recipients are mostly educated with high level education, their tax income would be positive to the government. Bier proved that the rescission would be the equivalent to 31 major regulations. It leads U.S. employers to terminate 6,914 employees who currently participate in DACA at a weekly cost of $61 million for the next two years, result at $6.3 billion in total employee turnover cost. There is no reasonable cause to rescind the program.

In short, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals benefits both the recipients and the nation. It was a bad move that Trump administration rescinded the program. Instead, he should maintain and keep it growing. They have good impact on employment industrial and increase the GDP. DACA respondents have been affecting positively to the national economy and spreading their success stories to others.

www.cato.org/blog/ending-daca-will-impose-billions-employer-compliance-costs.