Ethical Implications of Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Warfare

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.

Poison Gas/Chemical Warfare usage, while not harming physical structures preventing the collateral damage of homes and buildings, causes a high casualty rate in all living things. It is indescriminate and robs life equally be they related or not to a target of military or strategic importance. Gas usage has been widely considered uncivilized, but the French resorted to its usage in August, 1914 during the first World War in an attempt to rout the Germans. Unfortunately, the Germans were the first to give gas warfare serious development and it became used extensively before the war was over. On the battlefield it prooved effective in eliminating hostile threats in an inhumane way, but this does not make it morally acceptable. In more recent times ISIS has been reported to using Poison Gas in Syria against both military and civilians in an indescriminate manner. This sort of attack ignores international laws as well as inhumanely cause widespread harm. In this day and age, this sort of attack is unnecessary and is why it was outlawed in the first place even back during the first World War.

The purpose of this essay is to deal with the fact that chemical warfare should be brought back to modern warfare strategies. As Warren Rudman said, “And they will tell you unequivocally that if we have a chemical or biological attack or a nuclear attack anywhere in this country, they are unprepared to deal with it today, and that is of high urgency.” Rudman’s words are true in what they say and that we should do everything to counter-act his statement. Biological weapons are a key to outstanding success in war and therefore, I strongly suggest that chemical warfare is an effective and producible weapon tactic that can be used on today’s battlefield.

As a citizen of the United States, I am part of an institution that has been, and is currently, killing people. Whether or not all or some of these killings are ethically defensible is a difficult question to answer and most people simply never confront the issue. I will evaluate literature on the topic, identify the different justifications for killing in time of war and decide if they legitimize our actions. After describing some compelling arguments, I will defend my own position that pacifism is the only ideal which mankind should embrace.

Chemical weapons originated in early World War I. They were simple grenades or mortars filled with common chemicals. These specialized grenades were popularized by the Germans and then were seen used by even the Allied Forces. They were popularized by their area of effect and useful in the trench warfare.

John Yoder argues that just war cannot simply act as a checklist to determine what decisions should be made in war – more prudential factors need to be considered. Oliver O’Donovan further elaborates on this argument by introducing the argument that, although the design of nuclear weapons seems to provide immediate evidence of indiscriminate intention, it is actually “the exercising party that is morally governing” as any weapon can be used indiscriminately. These arguments show that from a purely moral standpoint it is difficult to justify nuclear weapons; although nuclear weapons do not fit with the concept of just war, the fact that states are willing to adopt them shows either that these states do not value the concept of just war, or that the necessity to possess these weapons overpowers the ideals of just war. This shows that nuclear weapons provide an effect for which countries are willing to put aside their moral preferences; highlighting that there must be an underlying necessity for nuclear weapons in the 21st century. It is essential to now explore what that effect is.

Technology in the light of military weaponry has been one of the growingly controversial issues that the world faces today. Among the top weapon types that have advanced greatly over the past recent years are nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry. Though the United States government and military has been enthusiastically involved in the evolution of these weapons, their enthusiasm dwindles when responsibility must be taken for the consequences that result. Consequences that are left unresolved or postponed only bring about more doubts and questions that all branch off of one basic issue: Is it ethical to continue the advancement of nuclear, chemical and biological warfare when the results cannot be

Weapons of Mass Destruction Weapons of Mass Destruction (1) Introduction (2) The Term * 1 Early uses of term * 1.1 Evolution of its use * 2 Definitions of the term * 2.1 United States * 2.1.1 Strategic * 2.1.2 Military * 2.1.3 Criminal (civilian) * 3 Common hazard symbols * 3.1 Radioactive weaponry/hazard symbol * 3.2 Biological weaponry/hazard symbol (3) Treaties * 1 General

​Weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, provides a fundamental problem for governments and other organizations such as hospitals and schools. If WMDs manage to fall into the hands of terrorists, perhaps during a civil war, the potential for devastation and casualties is high. Therefore planning efforts to avoid WMD scenarios remain at the top of priority lists. This literature review will highlight the meaning of weapons of mass destruction, what some organizations or governments have currently implemented for such a scenario, as well as other planning efforts in order to reduce the likelihood of an attack by terrorists with WMDs.

Advantages of biological weapons are that they are effective in spreading the disease, highly toxic, inexpensive, and cultivated in a short period of time. Due to the detrimental effects of biological weapon, the army faced with these weapons would be easily disarmed. However, biological weapons prove difficult to store and deliver without unintentionally releasing them (Hurlbert 6). Therefore, innocent workers and civilians are

Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons have changed the way that people look at wars forever. Since their implementation into the battlefield, it has been realized that these taboo weapons are ones to be feared. Responsible for an extravagant amount of deaths over the past eighty years, chemical, biological, and nuclear threats are not to take lightly. A nuclear weapon is an “explosive device designed to derive its destructive explosion via nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, or a combination of the two processes”. The implementation of nuclear weapons was a

Weapons of mass destruction and their ability to challenge security and create large-scale obliteration have become the most significant threat in international politics, causing vast concern of the consequences that may arise if they were to emerge in the hands of dangerous non-state actors. Chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons not only possess the ability to end the life of many but also pose negative effects on the environment and global economy. While their ability to wipe out a mass of civilians causes terror throughout the world, the major concern in regards to WMD is the possibility of their landing in the hands of treacherous terrorist groups. This fear expanded in 2001 after the terrorist use of anthrax in the United Sate’s postal services (Reed). Although all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons acquire the ability to terrorize a civilization, nuclear weapons pose the deadliest threat. Chemical weapons seize the ability to wipe out thousands of lives with effective “gas” attacks while biological threats influence the spread of deadly diseases. What makes these two forms of WMD less severe than nuclear weapons is that protective clothing and gear can be worn to avert lethal gas and it is difficult for a pandemic disease to become large scale in today’s era (Macfarlane). The United States should focus its concern on nuclear weapons and the fatal threat they pose not only on human life but also on infrastructure. Arming an

In 1995, terrorists released chemical gas on a Tokyo subway; this resulted in several deaths and disabilities towards those who survived (OPCW). The United States used chemicals in the Vietnam War; the spreading of these chemicals led to several health problems among US war veterans today, limbless children in Vietnam, and 650,000 Vietnamese suffering from chronic conditions (McMillan). As chemical weapons are banned, Barack Obama had reacted, as Syria used chemical weapons on its own people, to say that the use of chemical weapons is banned and those who fail to comply have crossed the red line (Cagle Cartoons). Due to the fact that chemical weapons are internationally banned, it is obvious that they possess a threat to security and mankind, especially as they can cause widespread damage as a result of their toxicity. The use of chemical weapons lead to a large number of harmful effects toward the human body. Nerve agents lead to the malfunction of the nervous system, nausea, convulsions and spasms. Other agents, like the blistering, choking, or blood agents result large blisters, 3rd degree burns, damage to the lungs, respiratory failure and death (Shea). As a result, these harmful effects have led to the banning of chemical weapons as they possess abundant threats to humankind. To summarize, chemical weapons, weaponry that is internationally banned, have the potential to cause horrific injuries and death among humans

A majority of the science and technology breakthroughs of the 20th century improve mankind and advance society. From antibiotics and vaccines to the internet and the cell phone, engineers and scientist grind to enhance the quality of life not only of the United States but the world. However, in a planet inhabited by humans, power rears its tenacious head and disrupts the balance of good and evil and manipulates situations that cause havoc and do harm. Consequently, in an era where war exists in any country at any time, weapon of mass destruction spark discussions amongst the world’s leaders, the UN, foreign ambassadors, and the citizens. The most talked about weapon is the nuclear bomb. The use of the nuclear weapons happens to be a taboo

Dating back to the 1100’s there have been records of the use of biological weapons in warfare. This involved the usage of human and animal corpses to pollute water sources and to spread diseases. Post World War One increased interest in biological weapons lead to them becoming more advanced. With this improvement it is evident that warfare has evolved. This progression in warfare can be seen when looking at the manner in which wars were fought prior to the introduction of biological weapons in the 1100’s, and comparing it to the manner in which they were fought succeeding the advancement of these weapons in the 1900’s. Although biological weapons have rarely been used, their effects on warfare are apparent. When studying biological weapons one must deliberate on the factors that have driven its use and creation as well as the responses and threats thereof. This essay will therefore focus on depicting biological weapons and their uses throughout history; beginning with its most medieval applications in siege warfare and comparing it to its various uses in World War One, Japan in the 1920’s , the Cold War and the Persian Gulf War. The reasons as to why biological weapons have been used and created differ in each circumstance, ranging from its advantageousness in imperialism to its role in instilling fear. Furthermore, to properly determine the impact of biological weapons on warfare this essay will examine the outcomes of its use. With the main response being the