The Existing And Evolving Threat Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction

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.

What technically makes something a weapon of mass destruction? The definition of a weapon of mass destruction is “A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, chemical, biological or other weapon that can kill and

Two main theorists of international relations, Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan have been debating on the issue of nuclear weapons and the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. In their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, they both discuss their various theories, assumptions and beliefs on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. To examine why states would want to attain/develop a nuclear weapon and if increasing nuclear states is a good or bad thing. In my paper, I will discuss both of their theories and use a case study to illustrate which theory I agree with and then come up with possible solutions of preventing a nuclear war from occurring.

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

Since their desired effect is ‘shock and awe’, WMD would be an attractive option to a cowardly force, seeking to inflict the most psychological and physical effects. Not all attacks require ‘mass casualty’ status to garner attention. According to the National Counterterrorism Council (2008), 11,800 terrorist attacks resulted in 54,000 deaths, injuries, and kidnappings. Excluding the outcome of 9/11, al Qaeda employs close-range attacks and generally inflicts casualties to small numbers. Since overt forces are stronger in the Middle East, I would anticipate a CBRN attack within their homeland, as the indigenous framework of sympathizers and extremists can deliver a larger-scale and better-organized attack. In consideration of Yamin’s (2013) findings, countries with terrorist links, such as Syria and Pakistan have publicly declared they produce and stockpile CBW. If terrorists receive financial backing and political shelter from these countries, there is a possibility of these weapons coming into their

After World War II, tensions reached a new high in the United States. The American people experienced Cold War fears, which changed the way they lived, and acted politically. The U.S. was at ends with the Soviet Union, and this tension manifested itself into the population through the fear of nuclear missiles, and communism, and thanks to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, and his administration, many of these fears were resolved, or at least minimized.

The United States has used weapons and mass destruction (WMD) to combat the war on terror. WMD’s are weapons that can either be chemical or mechanical that’s used to kill a large population. In one article by Scott J. Glick, a Maurice A. Deane School of Law at Hofstra University, says “a violent extremist group may wish to use a WMD, including: (a) the psychological impact that such a weapon would have on the American public; (b) the economic, political, and social instability that would reasonably be expected to follow the use of a WMD; (c) the physical destruction that could be caused to critical infrastructure, loss of life, and contamination to vital areas;...”(Glick 27). In another article the author John D. Negroponte is the Senior Research Fellow in Grand Strategy and Lecturer in International Affairs at Yale. The other author, Edward M. Wittenstein, is the assistant to the President of Yale and used to work as the executive assistant to the director of National Intelligence (2006-2008). The article goes into saying “and the decision to invade Iraq without adequately questioning the widespread assumption that it possessed WMD…” (Negroponte Wittenstein 6-9). The use of WMDs in any country causes international intelligence to examine those countries. They do this to see where they are, if a country is going to launch, and who is responsible for this. Intelligence doesn’t have an accurate data to say that there definitely is a WMD in an area. This has happened in the past with the Soviet Union and today with North Korea. International Intelligence has spread into different branches and has given those branches certain jobs to watch for both terrorist attacks and

Are we too casual about nuclear arms threat? by John M. Crisp. The genre is an editorial (January 3,2017). Crisp shows that people are too nonchalant about nuclear weapons and their dangerous effects because of their daily lives and work which do not allow for them to worry about these threats through the use of rhetorical appeals. The earth already suffers from the climate change, yet the American people still ignore the history of what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki and all the damages U.S inflicted. Countries yet race to develop plentiful nuclear weapons that are having conflict with other countries. Crisp appeals to logos by utilizing factual information such as the effects of climate change inflicted by nuclear bombs.

The government of United States has spent millions of dollar on the countering of perceived danger and discussions are made by the government concerning the topic of vulnerabilities of United States including WMD. The WMD has two levels: first is to appraise the threat and to find the countermeasures in mass destructive terrorism. The WMD is intended to be protected by the US Domestic Preparedness Program. In section 1403, it is said that any weapon or device has the capability to cause any serious risk, death or seriously bodily injury to a large number of people through highly toxic chemical. The details about how large the number of people and how can the capability of weapon be known? None of such questions is answered and no explanation is given. The US is spending millions on WMD due to two conclusions: the WMD supports for the attacks using deadly weapons because these weapons are lethal and destructive. Other conclusion can state that the results of an attack are more focused rather than how attack is done. The terrorists can use non-conventional weapons are not important in WMD terrorism.

For the reading this week it would seem clear that at a minimum terrorist groups are very interested and motivated to gain access to a CBRN weapons or Weapon of Mass Destruction. This new focus for terrorist groups is a focus that has comes with some very real concerns for the Homeland Defense and Homeland Security industries. As, Sinai, eludes too in his work, “The Evolving Terrorist Threat: The Convergence of Terrorism, Proliferation of WMD, and Enabling Conditions in Weak and Strong States”, terrorist have a criminal network they use for fundraising. This network often includes drug trafficking, which by nature has sophisticated smuggling operations. This same network could potentially be used to smuggle proliferated CRBN weapons or Weapons

America’s paranoia is misplaced. Since the onset of the Cold War, Americans have feared and prepared for a nuclear attack. However, less attention has been paid to relatively more feasible threats: biological and chemical weapons. It is without a doubt nuclear weapons, if ever used could inflict an unparalleled level of damage. However, the likelihood of a biological or chemical attack on US citizens is greater. The mutual deterrence of the United State’s second-strike capability makes a nuclear attack against Americans unlikely. Meanwhile Chemical and biological are widespread and accessible to sub national actors who are not deterred from attacking by American nuclear and conventional forces. Both chemical and biological weapons present are

Although the article was written a long time ago, it help me gained a better understanding about the historical perspective of the regulatory issues that are associated with a WMD attack response. I was able to compare and contrast the WMD response strategies that were used during the time that article was written against the current WMD response strategies that I learned throughout this course. Finally, I was able to learn about some of the laws and polices that were created to improve WMD response

Since World War I, weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have been use to fight wars. Since then massive groups of people have said their opinions on whether they like the governments having and using WMD and they would like to see a ban on the use of WMD forever. The world has not seen the end of WMD, so the controversy still remains; while some believe that WMD cause more harm than good, there are others that say otherwise.

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

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