You are on page 1of 1

Saskia Onggo


Nuclear Winter
Arsenals - collection of military weapons stored by country, group, person
Intercontinental - traveling between continents or relating to
Conflagrations - extensive fire that destroys a lot of property/land
Unilateral - affecting one part/side in situation without agreement of others
Out-lining - trace outer edge/shape of something
I believe the following thesis statement is The chance that nuclear weapons would be used by
mistake, in a panic after an international incident, by a computer hacker or by a rogue leader of
a nuclear nation can be eliminated only by the removal of the weapons themselves. (61).
Throughout the text, you can find multiple pieces that support the given thesis statement,
All have the destructive power to alter the global government. (50). In this paragraph, its
explaining the numbers of our nuclear weapons and ignites a fear of the possibilities with all of
these weapons on hand.
More modern and advanced climate modeling has confirmed the initial fightings and
shown that the effects would last for more than a decade. (72). This sentence explains more of
the backings that the author had about nuclear winters, combined with putting more emphasis on
the effects of nuclear bombs.
Even with the reduced nuclear arsenals that the United States and and Russia agreed to
in 2010, we have the ability not only to set off instantaneous destruction, but also push global
temperatures below freezing, even in summer. (19) is another example of my thesis statement
describing the repercussions of having these weapons, and our own abilities as people living in
this world today.
The whole text really was confusing to me, so I had to reread it a few times. But it really
opened up my eyes regarding the dangers that can happen at anytime. It didnt seem very
argumentative to me, but more of a piece talking about what happens during a nuclear winter.
They had lots of facts, but behind the facts were some things that I couldnt quite grasp and
understand. Overall, I thought it was a strong text, but I didnt really see any conflict that it was
arguing towards, it was clear that nuclear weapons are bad.
Mr. Aguirre said that we need to be more organized with our thoughts but Im not sure how to
not jump from topic to topic. So I think thats something that I should try to be able to guide the
conversation so that it isnt as unorganized. The seminar also got pretty heated between some
people, so my new goal is to try to keep the conversation organized and more of a collaboration
than an argument or debate.