The Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction

It has been seventy years since the last military nuclear bomb was successfully executed and many of us feel that nuclear threats have decedent or vanished, but Schell informs us that they are full of life. The Seventh Decade examines how the nuclear bomb has continued to cast a dark shadow over global politics and has advocated for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. The book takes on a robust roadmap to a nuclear bomb free world that looks at the historical dark uncertainties of the Cold War, where the odds of a nuclear attack were extremely high during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis to the spread of nuclear knowledge and technology in the 1990s to unstable nations like Iraq and Pakistan, increasing the risk and fear of a nuclear war.

Since the invention of nuclear weapons, they have presented the world with a significant danger, one that was shown in reality during the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, nuclear weapons have not only served in combat, but they have also played a role in keeping the world peaceful by the concept of deterrence. The usage of nuclear weapons would lead to mutual destruction and during the Cold War, nuclear weapons were necessary to maintain international security, as a means of deterrence. However, by the end of the Cold War, reliance on nuclear weapons for maintaining peace became increasingly difficult and less effective (Shultz, et. al, 2007). The development of technology has also provided increasing opportunities for states

1. There are three defined intelligence approaches to WMD/Terrorism. These are the Strict Constructionist approach, the Unilateralist Approach, and the Reasonable Necessity approach. Those who believe in the Constructionist approach believe in “...non-violent methods of conflict resolution” and they are “...skeptic of military force and intervention...” (Forest & Howard, 2013, p. 483). People that are into the Unilateralist approach are completely different from those in the Constructionist approach, in which that they believe that “...states have a right to use self-defensive force against some states that have, or will soon have, WMD capabilities-even absent identifiable plants for imminent attack...” (Forest & Howard, 2013, p. 485).

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

Nuclear weapons pose a direct and constant threat to people. Not even close from keeping the peace, they breed fear and mistrust among nations. These ultimate instruments

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.

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.”

Terrorists today are more than unlikely to use WMD in the future as they fear retaliation from the target country, also states that supply and train. terrorist groups cannot completely control them and they have no guarantee that a terrorist group would not use WMD against them. This article analysis shows that there is a need for more research that will explain how events and situations will make an impact on a terrorist group's decisions about using WMD. Only then can we appropriately analyze the threat of the future use of WMD by terrorists. To continue to prepare for the future use of WMD, governments should boost the training of efficient response personnel and increase funds to proliferation, research and development programs such as

With the events that happened on September 11, 2001, the American people and all government leadership realized that the U.S. was fight a whole new other type of war. The U.S. has dealt with foreign terrorist networks abroad and the 1993 World Trade Center bombings. With the tragic event of 9/11, it became something of a nightmare because no American in history had the knowledge to deal with this kind of attack. Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTO) wants nothing more than to destroy America and the threat of another attack is imminent but, when? Every year these FTO’s will evolve and want to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons (CBRN).

Growing up, I owned a stuffed Winnie the Pooh bear. I loved the show, and loved Pooh even more. On Sundays, I would dress my Pooh bear in my sister and I's doll clothes and bring it with me to church. One Sunday, an older kid at Sunday School mocked my Winnie the Pooh bear, because Pooh is a boy but I made mine wear a dress. At the young age of 5, I didn't understand why Pooh couldn't be a girl to me, even though the character from the television show was a boy. I left Sunday School that day sad and confused. I always thought of Pooh as a girl, and it crushed me to find out different. I decided I would change my favorite character to a girl character, get a new stuffed animal, and let her wear dresses to church to avoid getting mocked. However,

First of all I would like to thank Professor Lamb for creating a safe environment to speak openly about our own experiences about drugs and alcohol. Once upon consulting my field instructor earlier this semester, she had posed the question… “Are you just sitting in it?” The “it” referring to my anxieties since my father is an addict. As I reflect on this semester, I believe there were a few times that I was “just sitting in it,” but as I heard some colleagues open-up it instilled a sense of courage and relief that I was not alone. I appreciate that you, Professor Lamb, created a safe and non-judgmental space to share our thoughts, feelings, comments, questions, etc. Thank you for giving us assignments that were not just “busy work” and that challenged us to get comfortable with the uncomfortable.

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

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.

Main articles: Nuclear weapons and the United States and United States and weapons of mass destruction

Many books, movies, quotes and ideas have been crafted and based off of the stories and themes of The Bible. The parables as shown in The Bible As/In Literature have many characters that other authors and artists base their work off of as it guides some audiences to believe where these ideas and morals have come from. One of these art forms being the Dreamworks animated movie, The Prince of Egypt. It tells the Biblical story of Moses and how he saved the Israelites from the hard, grueling slave work the Egyptians forced through them, once God gave him the task to. The movie The Prince of Egypt and the parables from The Bible As/In Literature share many themes that connect the stories together and the traits shown through their characters. Some major themes that are used between the two are leadership, determination and faith.