The 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.

If nuclear weapons are used in war sustainable life on this planet will be ended. Nuclear Weapons have only been used a few times in the history of this earth. The few times nuclear weapons were used the amount of damaged they caused was devastating. The first country to use nuclear weapons was the United States during World War II. On August 6, 1945 an atomic bomb nicknamed “Little Boy” was dropped on Hiroshima killing between 90,000 and 166,000. Then on August 6th, 1945 the second atomic bomb nicknamed “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki killing 60,000 – 80,000 people. These statistics show how devastating nuclear weapons were when they were used and how they can be if they are used again. This paper will examine the Dangerous effects of

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

Terrorism is something that has been going on since the dawn of mankind, and it will be with us until the very end. Most people know terrorism only as a horrific, inhumane process that is used to inflict harm and fear towards specific ethnic and religious groups. In reality, however, terrorism was actually used in our very own revolution, the American Revolution. You will see that the Boston Tea Party is a superb example of terrorism. American settlers dressed up like Native Americans, parading and shouting down the streets of Boston late at night, all the way down to the docks, boarded the tea ships, and dumped every parcel of tea down the Charles river. This was the start of American terrorism in the American revolution, and it continued through the war as the Americans started using guerilla warfare and attacking major centers for the British military and the British economy.

Nuclear weapons have been used twice in war – on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. More than 210,000 civilians died, while many more suffered small injuries. Even if a nuclear weapon were never again exploded over a city, there are horrible effects from the production, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons that are experienced as a personal and community catastrophe by lots of people around the world. This must inform and motivate efforts to get rid of these weapons.

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).

The issues regarding the arms trade discussed in Sowing Weapons of War include the free market in arms, moral responsibility, policies for curbing the trade, and the banning of landmines. Regarding the free market in arms, the Unites States’ activity in the trade has increased dramatically since the Cold War and this increase has led to an increase in lives lost in third world countries due to violence. As a supplier of war weapons, the United States has a moral responsibility to ensure that they follow the process for a legitimate trade. The trade is legitimate if it promotes legitimate defense or follows the principle of sufficiency. However, even though there are instances where the trade can be justified, measures should be taken to curb the trade. Strict controls in the United States as well as internationally can curb the trade; as well as finding nonmilitary ways to protect jobs. Landmines claim the lives of civilians every week; measures need to be take internationally to reduce the number of landmines hidden across the world. In conclusion, weapons of war take the lives of several people everyday, but it does not have to remain this way as there are many steps that the country and the world can take to put an end to the illegitimate

Although many people carry on with their daily life half indifferent and half frightened, their tomorrow’s fate solely lies in their thoughts, actions and decisions at the current time. “The Menace of Mass Destruction” is a speech that was previously given by Albert Einstein to the General Assembly and the Security arm of the United Nations during the second yearly dinner of the Foreign Press Association. Ideally, the speech is among the most influential speeches ever given because it addresses critical issues that threaten human peace, outlines the reasons for the mishaps, and provides adequate solutions to their problems. The speech is the most effective since it focuses on the real issues affecting today’s generations that in turn determines the future generations’ peace and stability. In addition, it gives guidelines into how different nations can live peacefully without posing threats to the future generations.

The first use of nuclear weaponry in warfare occurred on the morning of August 6, 1945 when the United States dropped the atomic bomb known as “Little Boy” on Hiroshima, Japan. The result was devastating, demonstrating the true power of nuclear warfare. Since the incident, the world has been left fearing the possible calamity of another nuclear war. Joseph Siracusa’s Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction explains aspects of nuclear weaponry from simply what a nuclear weapon is, to the growing fear from nuclear warfare advancements in an age of terrorism. The book furthered my education on nuclear weapons and the effect they place on society, physically and mentally.

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.

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

Amid the 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly, Archbishop Bernardito Auza, Permanent Observer of the Holy See addressed that “The Holy See recommends therefore that discussions on weapons of mass destruction go beyond the traditional categories of nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons to include devastatingly powerful conventional weapons used to perpetrate war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

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.

We define terrorism as using force to influence or change a political decision. Given that there may be an array of situations the U.S. government and the American people are faced with on a daily basis, most would probably agree in saying that terrorism is the most imperative issue we are not only becoming victims to, but are interminably asked to deal with as well as finding a solution for.