The Pros And Cons Of Chemical And Biological Weapons

As discussed earlier, many biological agents such as anthrax and Ebola have negatively affected populations in a way that has scarred the scene of bioterrorism forever. As shown throughout many different bioterrorism events, the use of biological agents has been effective in their cause while causing the fear that was attempted to be achieved. Although biological agents are effective, they are too harmful to use in regular warfare. Putting the entire human race in risk of extinction, or even possibly causing an apocalyptic society, is not worth the outcome of a bioterrorism attack. While the point may be made by the terrorist, the end result may throw the entire world into a mess socially and

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 9/11 terror attacks is one of the historical and fatal events that changed the United States of America forever, especially in relation to terrorists and terrorism. While these concepts were on the minds of very few people in America's population before the attacks, the 9/11 incident made terrorism to become one of the major concerns for the whole nation. This is despite of the fact that they were carried out in New York City, Washington, and parts of Pennsylvania. Since it was a major concern, the terror attacks dominated all kinds of media and contributed to increased security measures for average Americans. Moreover, terrorism currently provides a major threat to global security that any time in American and global history (Dyson, 2001, p.3). As a result, it has become a fundamental aspect for law enforcement agencies and their initiatives, particularly with the rapid technological advancements.

So far, terrorism has been a key obstacle to many foreign nations, as they are struggling to prevent terrorist attacks. From the year of 1997 up to the year of 2003, international terrorist attacks have gone from less than 500 to almost 3000. Overall, global terrorism has grown by almost 1200% from 1997 to 2003. (Johnston 1). This massive increase in terrorism reflects on other nations' lack of control of the safety of their nation. These statistics also show that something needs to be done to protect the

Brian Jenkins (1998) offers a practical solution to the problem: terrorists are not typical criminals. They commit crimes for political purposes. When captured by security forces, they are not usually prosecuted as terrorists but charged with the crimes they commit. Terrorists strike targets for political purposes in a given situation, using crime as an incidental tactic. When terrorists cross national boundaries, they become international terrorists. Furthermore, terrorists are not exceptionally creative; they use a limited array of weapons and tactics.

With the emergence of the 21st century the necessity for a broader understanding of security have said present. The world has experienced a variety of new security challenges that have put at stake human safety and have made policymakers all around the world rethink their approach and strategies when it comes to the decision making process. The rise of terrorist organizations in the international arena as well as the development of extremist groups has offered extreme significance to the quest for power and the search for peace, while requiring us to look back and examine our achievements and failures in the analysis of terrorism, extremist groups and our counterterrorism efforts since 9/11. It is essential for all Americans to understand

Chemical warfare was starting to gain momentum during the First World War After using less than ideal equipment from the British against German forces, the United States needed to gain an edge for fighting into the future to increase their chances at mission success. The United States gained experience with chemical weapons from the First World War and after transitioning from World War I to World War II various improvements were made to enhance the capabilities of the Chemical Weapons Service. Colonel Lewis McBride was directly responsible for changing the Chemical Weapons Service and helped in securing America’s ideals; taking the United States into the future with new and improved chemical weapons technologies.

There are three major types of weapons of mass destruction and those are nuclear weapons, biological warfare agents, and chemical warfare agents. These weapons share their potential for large-scale destruction and the indiscriminate nature of their effects, notably against civilians. WMD’s challenges our peace and security here in the United States. There is a strategy for dealing with weapons of mass destructions, and it is the three pillars, which are counter proliferation, nonproliferation, and WMD consequence management. The United States has tried to stop other countries; however, it has gotten to a point that if the United States is attacked with nuclear weapons, then the U.S. will use WMD as a response to the attack. When it comes to weapons of mass destruction in the possession of hostile countries and even terrorists, it is one of the greatest security challenges facing the United States. The first strategy to combat WMD is counter proliferation to combat WMD use, counter proliferations are fully integrated into the basic doctrines, in trainings, and even equipping of all forces, since it is important for the U.S military and appropriate agencies to be prepared to deter and defend against any possible WMD event. With strengthened nonproliferation to combat WMD proliferation, in order to prevent states from acquiring WMD and missiles, we must enhance diplomacy, arms control, multilateral agreements, threat reduction assistance, and export controls. That is to slow and make it more costly to access sensitive technologies, materials, and expertise.

Additionally, John Mueller lambasts what he labels as the socially constructed ‘terrorist industry,’ which he attacks for artificially inflating concerns over terrorist attacks. Instead, Mueller confirms that the damage caused by terrorism is not materially significant but stems primarily from the fear that it creates. Violent retaliation is viewed as a form of ‘self-flagellation’ that provides the terrorists with exactly what they want. As mentioned, realist definitions of power, self-interest and rationality lack explanatory prowess when non-state actors are able to subvert states thanks largely in part to the use of suicide-terrorism. The proliferation of terrorist groups and their use of suicide-tactics in many ways defies realist expectations and conclusions.

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

Fear that terrorist could potentially get their hands on Syrian chemical weapons were elevated upon news that Bashar Assad’s military had used chemical weapons against civilians in Syria (Borger, 2013). These actions clearly crossed the “red line” that President Obama had drawn. Speculation on what the

Experts believe that terrorist use of chemical agents is an event with low probability, but potentially high consequences. While terrorist groups may or may not have an increased interest in chemical agent acquisition and use, the domestic vulnerability of the United States to chemical attack remains an issue. Both the United States and Russia have signed and ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), and are reducing, and eventually eliminating, their chemical weapon stockpiles.1 The possibility that terrorist groups might obtain insecure chemical weapons led to increased scrutiny of declared Libyan chemical weapon stockpiles following the fall of the Qadhafi regime. Experts have expressed similar concerns regarding the

     Laqueur sheds enlightenment into a new arena for terrorism: Arms of Mass Destruction. The chemical and biological weapons of yesterday are available and relatively cheap on today’s open market. Mr. Laqueur goes into depth on previous usages by terrorist organizations using these types of weapons as well as the

The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.

Modern terrorists have come to the realization that “they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain through acts of terrorism,” (Stern, p.5). After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of the global community. A defense budget of $401.7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget). Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11th. However, unlike al-Qaeda in Afghanistan under the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities. In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and easily identifiable party