TASK 2 (TWO PARTS): NUCLEAR WEAPONS
The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy.
The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
Sample Answer
It is true, to some degree, that while, diplomatically, the imminent threat of nuclear weaponry sustains global peace, economically and environmentally, the use of nuclear power provides the world with affordable and renewable sources of energy. This school of thought has prompted advocates of nuclear technology to claim its benefits far outweigh any tangible drawbacks. In my opinion, the downsides remain dominant, albeit with some reservations and proposals to optimise this technology’s advantages.
Proponents of nuclear energy argue in favour of both diplomatic and ecological benefits. From a diplomatic standpoint, the possession of nuclear technology in general, and the success of nuclear weaponisation in particular, can give a country a substantial edge in defence and geopolitical terms. Stand-out examples would be America, China, and Russia, whose readiness with nuclear warheads can instil both fear and respect in other nations. Since world leaders are fully aware of the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons, they are unlikely to escalate existing tensions into irreversible conflicts for fear of pre-emptive attack and retaliation, thereby reinforcing world peace. Environmentally, the use of nuclear power does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, which reduces carbon footprints and, in turn, leads to better air quality and alleviates environmental degradation.
However, describing nuclear energy as “cheap” is highly questionable, as the process of generation requires significant resources and a vast amount of knowledge, rendering these challenges major drawbacks. Indeed, nuclear power generation necessitates the construction of state-of-the-art reactors, highly specialised personnel, and advanced research facilities. Added to this are the levels of experience and expertise demanded to mitigate life-threatening risks and optimise the efficiency of such a stringent operation.
Moreover, the large-scale, devastating risks of nuclear weapons can override their potential benefits. A salient example is the nuclear destruction during World War II following the bombings of two cities, namely Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and caused insurmountable infrastructure damage. It is also self-evident that such a cataclysmic event, caused by the misuse of nuclear weapons, can negate the advantages of nuclear energy.
In my view, while I acknowledge the potential diplomatic and environmental benefits of nuclear technology, the devastating impact of nuclear weapons and its prohibitive operating costs make this proposal, on the whole, a negative one. To optimise the efficiency of nuclear energy and mitigate the destructive capacity of nuclear weaponisation, collaborative efforts between nations should be established to prevent nuclear attacks, encourage the peaceful use of nuclear power, and incentivise the fair distribution of nuclear energy.
Marking by Chat GPT 5
 |
TỪ VỰNG HAY
The threat of nuclear weapons maintains world peace. Nuclear power provides cheap and clean energy.
The benefits of nuclear technology far outweigh the disadvantages.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is true, to some degree, that while, diplomatically, the imminent threat of nuclear weaponry sustains global peace, economically and environmentally, the use of nuclear power provides the world with affordable and renewable sources of energy. This school of thought has prompted advocates of nuclear technology to claim its benefits far outweigh any tangible drawbacks. In my opinion, the downsides remain dominant, albeit with some reservations and proposals to optimise this technology’s advantages.
Proponents of nuclear energy argue in favour of both diplomatic and ecological benefits. From a diplomatic standpoint, the possession of nuclear technology in general, and the success of nuclear weaponisation in particular, can give a country a substantial edge in defence and geopolitical terms. Stand-out examples would be America, China, and Russia, whose readiness with nuclear warheads can instil both fear and respect in other nations. Since world leaders are fully aware of the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons, they are unlikely to escalate existing tensions into irreversible conflicts for fear of pre-emptive attack and retaliation, thereby reinforcing world peace. Environmentally, the use of nuclear power does not rely on the combustion of fossil fuels, which reduces carbon footprints and, in turn, leads to better air quality and alleviates environmental degradation.
However, describing nuclear energy as “cheap” is highly questionable, as the process of generation requires significant resources and a vast amount of knowledge, rendering these challenges major drawbacks. Indeed, nuclear power generation necessitates the construction of state-of-the-art reactors, highly specialised personnel, and advanced research facilities. Added to this are the levels of experience and expertise demanded to mitigate life-threatening risks and optimise the efficiency of such a stringent operation.
Moreover, the large-scale, devastating risks of nuclear weapons can override their potential benefits. A salient example is the nuclear destruction during World War II following the bombings of two cities, namely Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths and caused insurmountable infrastructure damage. It is also self-evident that such a cataclysmic event, caused by the misuse of nuclear weapons, can negate the advantages of nuclear energy.
In my view, while I acknowledge the potential diplomatic and environmental benefits of nuclear technology, the devastating impact of nuclear weapons and its prohibitive operating costs make this proposal, on the whole, a negative one. To optimise the efficiency of nuclear energy and mitigate the destructive capacity of nuclear weaponisation, collaborative efforts between nations should be established to prevent nuclear attacks, encourage the peaceful use of nuclear power, and incentivise the fair distribution of nuclear energy.
Vocabulary
- imminent threat of nuclear weaponry – mối đe doạ hạt nhân cận kề
- global peace – hoà bình toàn cầu
- affordable and renewable sources of energy – nguồn năng lượng tái tạo & giá rẻ
- tangible drawbacks – hạn chế rõ ràng
- optimise this technology’s advantages – tối ưu hoá lợi thế công nghệ này
- possession of nuclear technology – sở hữu công nghệ hạt nhân
- success of nuclear weaponisation – thành công trong vũ khí hoá hạt nhân
- substantial edge in defence and geopolitical terms – lợi thế đáng kể về quân sự & địa chính trị
- instil both fear and respect – gieo rắc nỗi sợ & sự kính nể
- destructive capacity – sức huỷ diệt
- irreversible conflicts – xung đột không thể đảo ngược
- pre-emptive attack and retaliation – tấn công phủ đầu & trả đũa
- reinforcing world peace – củng cố hoà bình thế giới
- combustion of fossil fuels – sự đốt cháy nhiên liệu hoá thạch
- carbon footprints – lượng khí thải carbon
- alleviates environmental degradation – giảm thiểu sự suy thoái môi trường
- state-of-the-art reactors – lò phản ứng tối tân
- highly specialised personnel – nhân lực chuyên môn cao
- mitigate life-threatening risks – giảm thiểu rủi ro nguy hiểm tới tính mạng
- insurmountable infrastructure damage – thiệt hại cơ sở hạ tầng không thể khắc phục
✔ DÀN Ý
Thân bài 1 – Lợi ích
- Lợi ích ngoại giao (diplomatic):
- Sở hữu công nghệ hạt nhân → có lợi thế về phòng thủ, vị thế chính trị quốc tế.
- Ví dụ: Mỹ, Trung Quốc, Nga với kho vũ khí hạt nhân khiến các quốc gia khác phải dè chừng → giảm nguy cơ xung đột.
- Kết quả: Duy trì hoà bình toàn cầu nhờ sự răn đe.
- Lợi ích môi trường (ecological):
- Điện hạt nhân không đốt nhiên liệu hoá thạch → giảm carbon footprint.
- Giúp cải thiện chất lượng không khí, giảm suy thoái môi trường.
Thân bài 2 + Thân bài 3 – Hạn chế
- Kinh tế – tài chính:
- Chi phí khổng lồ: xây nhà máy phản ứng tối tân, đội ngũ kỹ sư chuyên môn, cơ sở nghiên cứu.
- Đòi hỏi kiến thức + kinh nghiệm cao → vận hành phức tạp, rủi ro.
- Rủi ro an ninh & thảm hoạ:
- Vũ khí hạt nhân: gây hậu quả huỷ diệt không thể đảo ngược.
- Ví dụ: Hiroshima & Nagasaki (WWII) → hàng trăm nghìn người chết, thiệt hại cơ sở hạ tầng không thể khắc phục.
- Chỉ cần một sự cố → huỷ hoại mọi lợi ích của năng lượng hạt nhân.
Kết bài
- Lập trường: Thừa nhận có một số lợi ích ngoại giao & môi trường, nhưng chi phí cao và nguy cơ thảm hoạ khiến hạt nhân nhìn chung mang lại nhiều bất lợi.
- Hướng đi: Chỉ khi có sự hợp tác toàn cầu, kiểm soát chặt chẽ và định hướng sử dụng hoà bình thì năng lượng hạt nhân mới có thể phát huy lợi ích.
