Definitions Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction

Was the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the American Government unavoidably necessary? This is what Samuel J. Walker intends to uncover in his publication. His argument is that the justifications made by the American Government after the dropping of the Atomic bombs were gross exaggerations and that the reasoning behind their ultimate decision is complicated. He contends that because of their lack of knowledge of the actual damage that the force of the

Weapons of mass destruction are ‘weapons that can devastate large areas and kill huge numbers of people’. There are 3 types of WMD’s; Nuclear Weapons, Biological Weapons and Chemical Weapons. In the world there are only 8 counties that own nuclear weapons and these include USA, Russia, UK, China, France, India and Pakistan and unofficially Israel. In this essay I will be looking at whether or not Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) can be justified, we can link this to the just war theory. I will also be looking at the 1945 Atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima and whether or not it can be justified.

If nuclear weapons are used in war sustainable life on this planet will be ended. Nuclear Weapons have only been used a few times in the history of this earth. The few times nuclear weapons were used the amount of damaged they caused was devastating. The first country to use nuclear weapons was the United States during World War II. On August 6, 1945 an atomic bomb nicknamed “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima killing between 90,000 and 166,000. Then on August 6th, 1945 the second atomic bomb nicknamed “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki killing 60,000 – 80,000 people. These statistics show how devastating nuclear weapons were when they were used and how they can be if they are used again. This paper will examine the Dangerous effects of

The power to destroy a civilization with a single weapon surely should not exist; however, nothing can fully prohibit all nuclear weapons. The high casualties that Japan had encountered were a loud message to the whole rest of the world portraying that exact statement. The diseases and hardships that the people of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had dealt with are situations the world fears; therefore,

It has been just over seven decades since the destructive atomic bombs were dropped on Japan. These bombs were the first of its kind-weapons of mass destruction. There are many points-of-view or opinions about whether or not the bombs should have been used. As always there are two sides to each story; those who are for a cause and those who are against. In this paper, I will discuss the two opposing points-of-view, as well as my own opinion on which argument I find most compelling.

Weapons of mass destruction is “a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to human-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere” (Weapons of Mass Destruction). The main reason I believe that The War Powers Act of 1973 should stay the way that it is, is because if the president has suspicion of weapons of mass destruction then they can act quickly on getting into the country to try and find and control the situation. Then if Congress figures out there is no weapons or need to be invading a country, the troops will get out. An example of a president starting a war because of suspicion of weapons of mass destruction is when president Bush declared war on Iraq. I think that the founding fathers would would agree with The War Powers Act of 1973 because, they did not want a president who had too much power or seemed like a

Nuclear weapons have been used twice in war – on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. More than 210,000 civilians died, while many more suffered small injuries. Even if a nuclear weapon were never again exploded over a city, there are horrible effects from the production, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons that are experienced as a personal and community catastrophe by lots of people around the world. This must inform and motivate efforts to get rid of these weapons.

If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.”

The first use of nuclear weaponry in warfare occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945 when the United States dropped the atomic bomb known as “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, Japan. The result was devastating, demonstrating the true power of nuclear warfare. Since the incident, the world has been left fearing the possible calamity of another nuclear war. Joseph Siracusa’s Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction explains aspects of nuclear weaponry from simply what a nuclear weapon is, to the growing fear from nuclear warfare advancements in an age of terrorism. The book furthered my education on nuclear weapons and the effect they place on society, physically and mentally.

Ever since World War two we have feared destruction and what could be the aftermath of nuclear bombs. We had a whole era in history to dedicate being terrified of weapons of mass destruction. We had bomb drills, duck and cover drills. The United States had TV drills if an attack were to happen on United States soil. For many Americans this was not hysteria, but a reality that could happen.

War, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is “A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state” (citation). War truly does bring out the worst of in the people involved, because in war the objective is to kill or capture enough of the opposing sides’ soldiers to show that your side is superior. Both sides will take any measures necessary to win, a few examples of this being Mustard gas, Ricin, Agent Orange, and Sarin . When guns and other weapons will not cut it, that’s when in the mind of the governments that chemical warfare became necessary . Since these four chemicals and many more have been used throughout history, the Chemical Warfare Convention banned all forms of chemical weapons, due to the lasting effects of the chemicals on both nations and individuals of those nations. The way the CWC defines a chemical weapon is a toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action.

Is the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in war ethical? Is there an appropriate time to use them? A dilemma will later be presented for consideration. Different ethical theories can either support or oppose the use of CBW depending on the circumstances. However, chemical, biological and nuclear agents are dangerous, uncontrollable and undifferentiating weapons of mass destructions. Actions must be taken to see that there are no future instances of use during war. However, before one discusses the legal and ethical issues involved with CBW, one must understand what chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are and how they function.

In addition, it is worth mentioning that the use of other types of controversial arms is not prohibited under international law. For example, the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of 1996 claimed that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is not prohibited under international law, even though it is extremely difficult to imagine a situation where the use of nuclear weapons might respect the principles of distinction and proportionality and not inflicting superfluous injuries or unnecessary

Chemical weapons are deadly, in-humane, not safe, and overkill. They are consider WMDs (Weapons of Mass Destruction) and have been on the rise since the early 1900s. These weapons are past and present proof that chemistry can crossover into technology. And have a huge impact on society for decades.

What defines a Weapon of Mass Destruction from other conventional weapons is no thin line. The broad gap that stands between your conventional ballistic missile and the Big Ivan, or Tsar Bomba as the Western front knows it, the largest human-created explosion in history. It holds the record at 50 Megatons of TNT, approximately 1,570 times the force of the bombs detonated on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Although WMD may seem to be a long-used term, the actual phrase can only date as far back as the early 20th century, around the era of World War One. As stated by Defining weapons of Mass Destruction by W. Seth Carus, “The men who created and adopted WMD as a term of art clearly wanted terminology that differentiated certain categories of weapons from conventional weaponry—nuclear and biological in the case of Bush and CBRN in the case of the CCA negotiators.”(Pg.39). The