# data[].attributes.body
What I interpreted from this quote is that the only reason there wasn’t a real war was because of the nuclear weapons both sides had as well as the fear of those weapons.

# data[].attributes.body
Having more weapons can make us safer. Evidence from Document C supports this claim when it is stated, “The crisis ended peacefully; however, both sides and the American public had fearfully braced for nuclear war and began to question the need for weapons that guaranteed “mutually assured destruction.”” What I interpreted from this quote is that the only reason there wasn’t a real war was because of the nuclear weapons both sides had as well as the fear of those weapons. This matters because without  the weapons America had as well as the weapons Soviet Union had one side probably would have attacked resulting in a huge war with the loss of many lives. This is why more weapons can make us safer.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that more weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to Document B it says, “Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). It meant that either side would respond to a nuclear attack by launching its own missiles, with devastating results for both sides.” What this quote is saying is that if any nuclear weapons were to be launched not only would it be harmful to the opposing side it would also cause destruction to the side that decided to launch the weapon. This is relevant to the claim because by setting those nuclear bombs off it would not bring peace it would bring war, and it would also be destructive to your own side. So no, having more weapons does not make you safer.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do make us safer. For example, according to source B, “...nuclear weapons came to be known as Mutual Assured Destruction...either side would respond to a nuclear attack by launching its own missiles…” (Source B). This means we need to have weapons in order to defend ourselves. This matters because if you don’t have any weapons to defend they will still attack and it’s better having weapons then not. In conclusion, having more weapons do make us safer because you are able to defend.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to source K, “...must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes” (Source K). This means we need to have more/stronger weapons. This matters because having more/ stronger weapons in order to defend lots of people’s lives will be in danger. In conclusion, I still think having more weapons is not safe for people’s lives since it is risky.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. For example in Source C, "The crisis ended peacefully; however, both sides and the american public had fearfully braced for nuclear war and began to question the need for weapons that guaranteed "mutually assured destruction". This means that both sides want to have the advantage over one of each other and want to make or create more destructive and deadly weapons. This matters because if they dont find a way to make true peace without using the harsh and deadly weapons the USA and the Soviet Union are going to obtain that advantage aka the power and use it against each other and maybe killing thousands of people.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do make us safer. For example, according to sources D, E, F, and K, in my personal opinion, even though they're all different images, they're trying to tell us the same thing. If we, the United States, fight with nuclear weapons with another country with nuclear weapons, it would basically be the end of both parties. This matters because if we did go in a war it would be putting the world's air pollution at a big risk. This matters because our air pollution is at an all time high and the nuclear bomb would only put us in an even worse spot.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to Source B, mutually assured destruction “...meant that either side would respond to a nuclear attack by launching its own missiles, with devastating results for both sides.” (Source B). This means that if either country attacks then it's pretty much game over for everyone else since it is a nuclear bomb it would impact way more people than if it was a missile. Nuclear bombs set off radiation, which leads to mutations that affect the health of living things. It also does something to the air and sets off a big heat wave. The bomb would affect way more countries than the country that was targeted.

This proves weapons make us less safe because the impact of a nuclear bomb would created more enemies for the country who sent the bombs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Yellow posts mean the post has been graded. Please do not make your posts yellow or change their color if they are made yellow by Ms. Emmorey 

# data[].attributes.subject
Yellow posts mean the post has been graded. Please do not make your posts yellow or change their color if they are made yellow by Ms. Emmorey 

# data[].attributes.body
Optional sentence Frames: More weapons do or do not make us safer. For example, according to Source ____, “______________________” (Source ___). This means ___________________. This matters because ________________.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do  make us safer. For example, according to Source A, ““You have to take chances for peace, just as you have to take chances in war. The ability to get to the verge without getting into the war is the necessary art . . . If you are scared to go to the brink, you are lost.” says Document A

This means for the sake of peace one must be willing to die for it. This matters because if you want your friends and family to be safe you have to sacrifice yourself and your sanity to reach this goal.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to Source B, “The combination of deterrence and the willingness to use nuclear weapons came to be known as Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). It meant that either side would respond to a nuclear attack by launching its own missiles, with devastating results for both sides.” (Source B).This proves that we are less safe because the enemy basically has the same weapons which will cause the same damage as ours so if we use ours they will use theirs as well. Mutually assured destruction is not going to keep us safe because of conflicts between countries and their leaders.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do make us safer. In document F there is a sign on the nuclear bombs from both sides saying, “On no account to be used - because the enemy might retaliate.” This means that both sides do not intend to use nuclear weapons for the fear of receiving a nuclear attack. This is important because the nuclear weapons are keeping the other side in check. The more powerful we are, the more intimidated other countries will be. In conclusion, having more weapons makes us safer.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do make us safer, for example according to source analysis, “The United states must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as this comes to its senses regarding nukes” says (Document K). This matters because if we have the stronger nuke power, it will decrease the amount of nuclear war because the other countries know that we have more power and that we would prevail against them, slowly over time the countries won't fight and we would be able to put away our nukes, and be in world peace until more war occurs.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do make us safer. For example, according to Source b “the strategy called deterrence revolved around developing a weapons arsenal so deadly that the soviet would not dare to attack.” This means that the US has the most power over any other country. This matters because no other country would dare to strike at the US and if they did they would lose.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. In document B: MAD Deterrence Strategy Deterring Attack by Threatening Mutual Assured Destruction it states, “It meant that either side would respond to a nuclear attack by launching its own missiles, with devastating results for both sides.” This means that when an attack happens the other side will correspond with an attack about the same degree. This is important because it shows that having nuclear weapons will just cause devastating damage to both sides. It doesn’t make us safer, it just assures that we will inflict the same damage back which will destroy many buildings and hurt, and possibly kill many citizens. The existence of more weapons will not make us safer.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to Source The Race to Develop Weapons of Mass Destruction , “the United States had possessed an atomic bomb. Now that the Soviets had one as well”. This means that both sides have made big weapons that can destroy a lot of stuff. This matters because both obtained power to kill millions of people and can kill us at any moment if they choose too.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do make us safer. For example, according to Source MAD Deterrence Strategy

Deterring Attack by Threatening Mutual Assured Destruction, “The combination of deterrence and the willingness to use nuclear weapons came to be known as Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.)” . This means that the US is willing to use nukes to protect us. This proves my thesis matters because nukes can be used to protect a county by threatening them with destruction.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make a safer for exam according to document H it says that ¨nuclear Israel feels threatened by Iran ¨this means that the nuclear weapons Iran get  the more Israel feels unsafe and able to defend themselves. This matters because Israel can't defend themselves they will all die because Iran will bomb them or attack them and Israel will be defenseless.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do make us safer. For example according to document I, “it says the u.s. should expand and upgrade the weapons because the road is coming to it scenes regarding ukes.¨ This means that other countries are expanding and upgrading their weapons count the US should too this matters because if we have better weapons and longer amount of them we can defend and protect our country better

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons make us safer.

For example, document H shows Donald Trump ripping up the nuclear treaties.

This means he thinks we should have more nukes.

I agree because having more nuclear weapons makes us more safe because it protects us from other countries.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to Source B, “The combination of deterrence and the willingness to use nuclear weapons came to be known as Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). It  meant that either side would respond to a nuclear attack by launching its own missiles, with devastating results for both sides.” This means if they were to attack and  launch the missile it would have the same results because they are using similar missiles. This matters because it would be another M.A.D situation, which would definitely not be safe.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do make us safer. For example, according to Source k, “ The United states must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such a time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes”. This means that we should enlarge our  nuclear weapons in order to defend ourselves. This matters because we will be ready for a nuclear war unless they stand down and make it peaceful.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, document K states that “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capacity until such a time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes.” This means that we will make more and more nukes until we figure out peace. This matters because it states that we may have war in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
Still not convinced, ok when in document G even the US government doesn't see the upside of having nuclear weapons, let me repeat that the US government people who are in charge of the country we live in and run everything here don't see why we would need nuclear weapons. I say more.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer . In source H, " nuclear Israel feels threatened by Iran. This means that the more nuclear weapons Iran gets the more unsafe and scared Israel is. This matters because Iran had nuclear weapons that can harm the Israel people and they feel unsafe and they might not have weapons to fight back so they have to fear for their lives. Also Iran can bomb Israel and they can get away with it because Israel don't got weapons to fight back with .

# data[].attributes.headline
Jazael Anguiano post #1                    More weapons don't make the work safer because according to document E nuclear weapon are a double edged sword.This matter because this can lead up to a nuclear war and like i said there are enough weapon to kill all life on earth multiple times over.This means that we should not start another war because we will most certainly get kill.In conclusion nuclear weapons is like fighting fire with fire you both get burn.   

# data[].attributes.subject
Jazael Anguiano post #1                    More weapons don't make the work safer because according to document E nuclear weapon are a double edged sword.This matter because this can lead up to a nuclear war and like i said there are enough weapon to kill all life on earth multiple times over.This means that we should not start another war because we will most certainly get kill.In conclusion nuclear weapons is like fighting fire with fire you both get burn.   

# data[].attributes.body
Post #:1

More weapons do make us safer. For example, according to document B, “either side would respond to a nuclear attack by launching its own missiles.” This means that if a country were to send a nuclear bomb to another, then the other country would send their own back. This matters because if a country is attacked and they don’t have enough weapons and missiles then they can’t fight back, which means we need more weapons to protect ourselves by not letting them have the upper hand with more weapons.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to source C “ The crisis ended peacefully; however, both sides and the American public had fearfully braced for nuclear war and began to question the need for weapons that guaranteed “mutually assured destruction.” This means that both sides want power and want to build more deadlier weapons. This matters because if they don't consider true peace without nuclear weapons the US and Soviet Union are going to obtain that power and use it against each other.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to source B, “The strategy, called deterrence, revolved around developing a weapons arsenal so deadly that the Soviet Union would not dare to attack.” This means that if the US does develop those weapons they can use to their advantage but would result in the Soviet Union looking to obtain an even greater one. This matters because both sides aren’t gonna stop their gonna try to be better than the other one.

# data[].attributes.body
Post #2:

More weapons do make us safer. For example, on document F it shows men shooting arrows at each other with missiles behind them with a sign that says, “On no account to be used because the enemy might retaliate.” This means that both countries had nuclear weapons ready but they won’t use them until it’s needed. This matters because if one does send a nuclear attack, then the other is prepared to retaliate. If they didn’t have the extra nukes, then they wouldn’t be able to defend themselves.

# data[].attributes.body
Post #2
More weapons do not make us safer. According to source A,”The Soviets had to believe that the United States would use its nuclear weapons if pushed too far.” This means that the Soviet Union believed that the United States would use nuclear power if forced. This matters because if the United States didn’t have nuclear weapons they would be overpowered by the Soviet Union.

# data[].attributes.body
For my second post I think once again that more weapons and a source that supports my claim is Document: K as Mr Trump states :The United States must greatly expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes” this supports my claim as he is saying that the US must have weapons on par with other countries to defend ourselves incase they ever think to attack they will be ready unless they disband continuation of the nuclear projects the other countries have then the US has no need of their own and we get rid of ours too, and in a basic sense we need a shield defend against our sword and once they put their sword away we put our shield away and the US will be fine which is why I think more weapons will make us safer.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that more weapons do make us safer. A source to support my claim would be from activity 7 specifically the race for weapons of mass destruction and activity 7 states “  the United States felt the need to develop weapons with even greater destructive force. Soon the two superpowers were locked in a deadly arms race, or a competition to achieve weapons superiority.” this supports my claim as if the US did not make superior weapons to that of the USSR then if the USSR tried attacking the US the USSR would win unless the US made weapons on par or superior to that of USSR’s weapons then if the USSR tried attacking the US then it most likely would’ve resulted in nothing but casualties on both sides meaning the US has to make more weapons to keep the status quo of peace, and peace would come from this as both sides are too afraid to attack each other. So in conclusion in order to keep peace we the US had to build weapons to keep the status quo which is why I believe that more weapons make us safer.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. According to document G The Iran leader is negotiating with the leaders of the US and asking for more weapons such as nukes and other things but the Iran leader didn't explain why.

This means The Iran leader is trying to negotiate with the US to ask for more weapons to make them feel safer.

This proves my point because Nuclear weapons don't make us safer because if you want to launch a nuke on that country you wouldn't mediately start another War just like the Cold War.

# data[].attributes.body
According to (document D) it shows that President Kennedy and maybe the Iran leader are wrestling each other on a table with their fingers pointing out of a button to launch a nuclear strike on their country.

This supports my point because Nuclear weapons don't make a safer because one wrong move you could immediately set off that nuke and destroy the country.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. The image in Document G depicts Uncle Sam talking to the leader of Iran about why Iran wants nuclear weapons. This means that Uncle Sam doesn’t want to give nuclear weapons unless Iran tells them why. This supports the thesis because if they do give nuclear weapons to Iran, who knows maybe they will launch to America or somewhere else and people can get injured or killed.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to Source B, “The combination of deterrence and the willingness to use nuclear weapons came to be known as Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). It meant that either side would respond to a nuclear attack by launching its own missiles, with devastating results for both sides” (source B).

This means that if we upgrade or better are weapons there can be a very deadly attack on both sides. The reason M.A.D won’t protect us from fighting is because there will be an attack one day.

Therefore, more weapons doesn't make us.

# data[].attributes.body
Possessing more weapons would not make us any safer. According to Document A, “brinkmanship—a willingness to go to the edge, or brink, of war.[...] It implied that the Soviets only understood force and assumed that they would back down if faced with the prospect of nuclear war.” This means that if another country were to threaten that they have more weapons, it would cause other countries to start preparing for attack and or defense. This matters because if everyone starts possessing more weapons trying to have more than the others, it’ll also cause situations like M.A.D. Therefore, I don’t think more weapons will make us safer.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe that having more weapons does not make us safer. Document B says, “The combination of deterrence and the willingness to use nuclear weapons came to be known as Mutual Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). It  meant that either side would respond to a nuclear attack by launching its own missiles, with devastating results for both sides.” This quote is saying that both sides of conflict have the ability to attack each other’s country resulting in about an equal amount of damage since both parties are using almost the exact same nuclear weapons. This is important because having more weapons will most likely lead to situations like M.A.D which will definitely not guarantee safety for any of us.

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to Source B, M.AD. “...meant that either side would respond to a nuclear attack by launching its own missiles, with devastating results for both sides” (Document B: MAD Deterrence Strategy Deterring Attack by Threatening Mutual Assured Destruction). This means if one country attacks another, then the attacked country would have to do something about it, such as shooting nuclear bombs at the other. that if either side responds to a nuclear attack then each side would have devastating results. This matters because a lot of people could die. Therefore, more weapons do not make us safer.

# data[].attributes.body
Post # 1
More weapons do not make us safer. According to source B, “The strategy, called deterrence, revolved around developing a weapons arsenal so deadly that the Soviet Union would not dare to attack”. This meant if the United States built and manufactured a deadly bomb, the Soviet Union would also manufacture a deadlier bomb. This matters because both countries would declare and would conclude in a  deadly and devastating way over power and dignity.

# data[].attributes.body
Post #2
More weapons do make us safer. For example, according to Source F, There are men lined up shooting at each other with arrows and they have Nukes behind them with signs that say “On no account to be used-Because the enemy might retaliate” (Source F). This means both countries have nukes ready and armed but they won’t ever use them unless very very needed but the main reason to have them is for intimidation and to show who has the most fire power and better weaponry. This matters because if a country tries to attack or gets ready for an attack then we will be ready and prepared for the hit and we will also be ready to retaliate.

# data[].attributes.body
Post #1
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to President Trump, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes. ” (Source K). This means having more weapons and/or Nuclear weapons such as the atomic bomb do not make us safer because then other countries will get the wrong idea and think that we have Nuclear weapons to attack and that they need to expand their weaponry as well and that could lead to war or several bombings.. This matters because if the United States expands their Nuclear weapons then when we least expect it we go into war or a Bombing happens near or towards the president.

# data[].attributes.body
Post #2
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, Source 14- Political Cartoon - Can’t see why. This is a political cartoon showing our mascot Uncle Sam with Iranian official, Uncle Sam is saying that they don't see why they want nuclear weapons. this shows that despite the power that somebody has with this nuclear power it also comes with the cost of anxiety and stress that somebody else might use that power. (source is from Political Cartoon - Can’t see why, just to satiate the requirements.)

# data[].attributes.body
Post #1
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to Source C, “In the 1950s, the government developed a foreign policy known as brinkmanship—a willingness to go to the edge, or brink, of war. Brinkmanship was based on a simple, if dangerous, idea… the Soviets had to believe that the United States would use its nuclear weapons if pushed too far” (Brinkmanship: Using the Threat of War to Contain Communism). This means in the event that brinkmanship does not work we could have an entire war on our hands. This matters because we like keeping or positive relations with other people-- no matter if we don't actually like them

# data[].attributes.body
Post #2
More weapons do make us safer. For example, according to Dulles, the secretary of state, “The strategy, called deterrence, revolved around developing a weapons arsenal so deadly that the Soviet Union would not dare to attack,” (Source document B). This means that if the United States were to create a deadly weapon and make the Soviet Union aware of the deadly weapons that it would scare them into not attacking because they would know that if they were to at first that it would only be brought back with an even deadlier destruction. The quote supports my thesis statement because the more weapons one and the other has, the more fear and anxiety will be brought and scare the countries that if war were to happen peace would not be made and only lives would be cost.

# data[].attributes.body
Post #1
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, according to Document C: Cuban Missile Crisis, “The crisis ended peacefully; however, both sides and the American public had fearfully braced for nuclear war”(Source C). This means that fear and stress was put over the American and Soviet people in fear that at any moment a nuclear war could breakout and kill tons of loved ones. This supports my thesis because not only do more weapons bring out fear and destruction, they bring on the idea that the more weapons the country has, the more we are safer, but that's not the case. The more weapons a country has, the more likely it will be used to terrorize/scare loving people into thinking that the next day, they could be dead due to a nuclear war. Therefore, more weapons do not make us safer because all it brings to the American people is fear and destruction.

# data[].attributes.body
post #1
More weapons do not make us safer. For example, According to document A, “The threat of nuclear war carried with it the prospect of utter annihilation, a threat the United States tried to use to its advantage.” This means that the US tried to use a threat to have power over other countries. This matters because It shows how far the US will go in order to take control

# data[].attributes.body
More weapons do make us safer. 
For example, according to source K, Donald Trumps Tweet, “the United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capabilities until such a time when the world comes to its senses regarding nukes” (Source K).  This means we should be alert for anything that can happen and to do so we need to upgrade our weapons. 
I agree with this because if we don’t upgrade our weapons we might lose if we were attacked. We do not know if other countries are upgrading their weapons so we should as well so we can have the same strength to defend ourselves. Therefore, more weapons us safer.

# data[].attributes.body
Post # 2
More weapons do make us safer. For example, according to Source analysis, “The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such a time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes” (Document K). This means we should increase our nuclear capabilities to be able to defend ourselves in a time of nuclear war. This matters because when the rest of the world doesn't want to participate in nuclear war we can deactivate our nukes and become completely peaceful.

# data[].attributes.body
Post # 1
More weapons do make us safer. For example, according to Source B, “The strategy, called deterrence, revolved around developing a weapons arsenal so deadly that the Soviet Union would not dare to attack.” (Source B). This means If we have weapons then other countries will think twice when wanting to attack us . This matters because This will make us safer, if other enemy countries want to nuke us now they have a reason not to

# data[].attributes.body
Post #:1

I think that more weapons do not make us safer. For example according to the source, “either side would respond to a nuclear attack by launching its own missiles, with devastating results for both sides.” (Source B). This means that if a nuclear attack ever happens both sides would use the missiles and destroy each other leaving no one left. This matters because even if we have more weapons it doesn't mean other countries or people dont have just as much as us. So what's the point of having more weapons if the other side is gonna have the same amount or even more. I think being able to strategize keeps you more safe then having more weapons, your mind has to be as sharp as your weapon. In conclusion having more weapons doesnt make you safer.

# data[].attributes.body
Post #:2

I think that more weapons do make us safer. For example according to the source, “ The United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes”(source k). This means that we should keep increasing our weapons so that we can defend ourselves until other countries come to an agreement about nukes. This matters because it's better to be safe than sorry and I’d rather have more weapons until I can guarantee my safety in another way that doesn't involve having more weapons. In conclusion I think more weapons make us safer.