Should Governments Have To Weapons Of Mass Destruction Essay

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.

President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the direct cause for the end of World War II in the Pacific. The United States felt it was necessary to drop the atomic bombs on these two cities or it would suffer more casualties. Not only could the lives of many soldiers have been taken, but possibly the lives of many innocent Americans. The United States will always try to avoid the loss of American civilians at all costs, even if that means taking lives of another countries innocent civilians.

Nuclear weapons are one of, if not the most dangerous weapons in the world today and they are one of the biggest issues the world faces at this current moment. They have the capability of destroying entire cities and then some that could result in millions of deaths within seconds. Radiation from the blasts would kill even more people throughout years to come. They were first used in 1945 at the end of World War II, when the United States dropped Little Boy and Fat Man in Hiroshima and Nagasaki to ‘save’ the lives of American soldiers. Since then, a nuclear arms race was born and it’s becoming more of a concern as time moves forward. Albert Einstein, who was the creator of the nuclear bomb once said “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Countries should not have access to nuclear weapons because it destroys the environment, there is a possibility of a nuclear war that will end in mass destruction of the world, and countries could save both revenue and resources.

On September 11, 2015 the greatest act of terror known was committed at the World Trade Center, as well as the Pentagon. The terrorist group known as al-Quaeda coordinated an attack by hijacking U.S. commercial flights and sending two planes into the World Trade Center and another into the Pentagon. Luckily, a fourth flight was retaken by the passengers and could not reach its target, yet sadly it crashed in a Pennsylvanian valley. This event broke the hearts of American citizens and citizens worldwide, and the actions coming after wards would have a huge impact on America.

Countries have found nuclear weapons to be a very deadly tool that can cause immediate havoc among any nation. Both the desire of wanting to be the detonator of an atomic weapon and the fear of being on the wrong side of one has brought upon other nations the aspiration to create such weapons. According to Brennan Weiss from businessinsider.com, there are now 8 other countries that bear nuclear weapons besides the United States. Moreover, the US does not even carry the most nuclear weapons; but, however, Russia does. The idea to use the deadly devices and weapons back in World War II have swayed other nations into wanting to become just as strong a power the US had portrayed to be in the second world war. The manufacture of nuclear weapons has become an initial part of the army for the 9 countries that acquire them, and still causes worries to countries to this day due to threats of use.

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

The date was September 14, 2012. At around 10 p.m. Camp Leatherneck was attacked by 15 insurgents. These attackers, organized into three teams, began an assault on the airfield of Bastion. While wearing U.S. Army uniforms, the attackers toted automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenade launchers and suicide vests. While aboard Camp Leatherneck/Camp Bastion, they inflicted incredible damage to the air-wing. Destroying six AV-8B Harrier jets and damaging two others, along with six aircraft hangers suffering damage, and six refueling stations were destroyed. While trying to fight the attackers off, two U.S. Marines were shot and killed, along with injuring several others.

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.

A multi-dimensional theoretical framework must be established in order to comprehend the full idea of nuclear weapons, deterrence, and when deciding whether the use can be justified. Researching various perspectives can assist the ethical decision making process by educating the readers on the position of the Catholic Bishops and International Relations Theory. Trying to determine the ethics of nuclear weapons requires different lenses of theoretical framework such as a realist and liberalist view that can be subcategorized into offensive and defense strategic structures. On the foundation of numerous statements such as the Catholic Bishops and various resources of International Relations, this essay will analyze the ethics of possessing

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

Since the atomic bomb attack on Japan in 1945, a WMD has not been used and I argue that no weapon carries a more negative connotation than the nuclear bomb. Nina Tannenwald, an International Studies professor at Brown University states that, “taboo is a negative disposition towards the use of nuclear weapon”(Par.2). Not only is the weapon seen as a taboo but another reason why it has not been used would be due to the fear of an all out nuclear war. If one state fires a nuclear weapon the other one will fire back and so on; It is this guarantee of destruction that acts as a deterrence from the use of any sort of nuclear weapon, such as in WWII and the Cold War. The taboo helps explain why nuclear weapons haven't been used as weapons even in

I believe nuclear weapons should not be banned worldwide. First off no country will get rid of

Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on earth. One can demolish a whole city, potentially killing millions, and exposed the natural environment and lives of future generations through its long-term catastrophic effects. According to the UNODA- United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs (2011), “Although nuclear weapons have only been used twice in warfare- in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945-about 22,000 reportedly remains in our world today and there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted to date.” Nuclear weapons have been viewed as a threat to peace by world leaders. There have been debates of whether to let Iran and North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, leaders all around the world along with Liberals believe that it is a threat to peace and should limit the spread whereas neo realist have another belief that nuclear weapon can make the world a peaceful place. Because states would fear to attack each other. For example the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and cold war- there were only threats and war did not happen because of nuclear deterrence. The Cuban missile crisis has frequently been portrayed as the only time where the world stood in the point of nuclear war between the superpowers. This is an example of how nuclear weapons were used to threaten the rival. Another examples would be that of India and Pakistan before they acquire nuclear weapon , they fought three bloody wars after having their independence but since 1998, after acquiring

Are Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) able to be used ethically in time of war without consequences? A question with many different answers from all over the world, from children, adults, and elders alike. Today, we will review quite a few things about WMD’s, such as what uniquely defines the ability of WMD’s from that of the average weapons. We will also view who created them, and why they created them in the first place. Furthermore, we will look into what was stated earlier: Are WMD’s able to be used ethically in time of war without consequence? We’ll answer this and more, with the paragraphs ahead.

As previously stated, the reason two superpowers like Russia and the United States long for nuclear weaponry is down to the fact that frankly, they are paranoid. If you can stockpile most of the nuclear warheads in the world then surely nobody could ever harm your country. This is certainly not the case. By having so many dangerous weapons you are not only a bigger threat to terrorists but also a huge threat to your countries morality. If the leaders of a country say that it is ok to use nuclear weapons to threaten enemies then what’s to say that civilians do not do the same thing to a smaller scale? In the beginning atomic bombs were created to end the war and to save numerous amounts of lives. By this, I mean that multitudinous lives were saved due to the fact that when the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima the Japanese surrendered straight away. If they hadn’t surrendered then the war possibly would have gone on for a lot longer. In contrast to this, look at what has become of the nuclear weapons now. Instead of saving lives, atomic bombs are now kept with the intention of unnecessary mass murder. What makes the monsters that enforce the use of nuclear weaponry any different from Adolf Hitler, Pol Pot or Joseph Stalin? Even though the atomic bombs are not in use at this moment, anyone or any government in possession of these weapons have the intention to inflict large amounts of pain on vast