Weapons Of Mass Destruction And Its Effects On The Global Community

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.

The foreign, military and economic policies of states, the intersections of these policies in areas of change or dispute, and the general structure of relations which they create, are all analysed in terms of aspirations to achieve national and/or international security. Security is most commonly associated with the alleviation of threats to cherished values (Williams; 2008). However this is a definition that is undesirably vague and a reflection of the inherent nature of security as an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Gallie; 1962). Security in the modern day context has many key concepts associated with it: uncertainty, war, terrorism, genocide and mass killing, ethnic conflict, coercion,

Foreign and domestic policies are not linear, rather the policies are connected in a circle, with each policy reinforcing the values of another. Domestic American terrorism in the prison and detention systems and governmental reforms are influenced by the mobilization and ethnocentrism abroad. The militarization internationally is justified by the domestic handling of the same cultural issues within the United State borders. The United States has strangely used a near Catch-22 to handle dilemmas. The United States has allowed perspective to become reality, whether with oneself or regarding issues abroad, specifically in the Middle East. Terrorism is the use or threat of fear for political or economical gain. An internal characteristic of terrorism is how dependent it is of perspective, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. To understand “terrorism,” a focus must be applied to the history, what drove an organization to commit such acts. Respectively, the Middle East has been a hotbed for the key word “terrorism,” especially because of 9/11. Subsequently, Muslims have been stigmatized by the United States as terrorists. The consequences spawned because of 9/11 require a look to the past to understand the present.

Terrorism is a major threat to national and global security that encompasses more than violent means by foreigners and Islamic extremists. This is mainly because most of the recent terror acts in America have been carried out by single-issue individuals and special-interest extremists with the intention of protecting the environment and animals based on their beliefs. Actually, terrorism is described as the illegitimate use of extreme violence and force with the intention of coercing a

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

The dilemma facing state leaders for the past decades has been whether to respond to terrorism through a criminal justice approach or a more involved military approach. The criminal justice approach treats terrorism as a law-and-order problem in which the main burden is placed on the judiciary and police. In contrast, the military approach treats terrorism as a perilous threat to the national security of the state, which can only be countered with military force and wartime procedures. The argument of this paper is that military procedures are not warranted in dealing with terrorism because the terror threat is not lethal or influential enough to threaten our democracy, and even if it was, military action has proven itself to be so fraught with problems and costly risks in past interventions that continued use of such a tactic would not only harm our national security, but also could precipitate the fall of the American Empire. Instead, law-enforcement has proven itself to be an efficient counter-terrorism tool that results in the capturing of terrorists, acquisition of intelligence, and spurring of cooperation with allied countries.

As we move steadfast into the twenty-first century we are confronted with more complex and compromising issues affecting the intricately connected global system. New forms of aggression and threat are the faces that greet policy-makers as they spend countless hours configuring ways to counter future attacks such as terrorism or massive drug trafficking within and across national borders. Instead of submitting ourselves to the tyranny of chance, which cruelly deals out futures blighted with catastrophes that can remain vivid in our memories, President George W. Bush has issued a mandate in an attempt to regain control over future acts of aggression such as terrorism

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).

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

In this paper, the principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity will be defined and discussed in relation to the event of 9/11. As well as, the legal constraints that are associated with the conduct of hostilities under the new conditions imposed. The term “terrorism” and “terrorist” were included following the events of 9/11, identifying a new type of enemy. Narratives of who the enemy was changed towards individuals who were or seemed like a Muslim. Muslims were perceived as the new enemy. This subsequently led to major legal constraints such as

Annotated bibliography Bellamy, Alex J., Security and the war on terror, 1975-, 2007 This author is a university lecturer in the University of Queensland. He is a professor of peace and conflict studies and seems like he has a very broad amount of knowledge in the area of different wars including war on terror. His book security and the war on terror are pushed towards readers who care about the security of their country and the war on terror. ‘This edited book recognises a fundamental issue: while major crises initially tend to reinforce old thinking and behavioural patterns, they also allow societies to challenge and overcome entrenched habits, thereby creating the foundations for a new and perhaps more peaceful future’ .

The collapse of the Soviet Union ended one era of American Security Concerns, but it gave rise to another more extensive era. This era would be marked by concern over the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction throughout former Soviet countries and other unstable nations. Every president from George H.W. Bush to Obama would mark this issue as a key threat to the nation’s security. The true question is what would each of these presidents do about the threat. Since World War II the United States has filled the role of the “global police” opposing injustices and neutralizing threats throughout the world, and the threat of devastatingly powerful weapons falling into unstable hands could be treated no differently. With this in mind

All these important questions about terror and insecurity are a considerable part of the subject of international politics. In this regard, scholars have dedicated decades for understanding the relations between states in political, economic, social, and other

Kegley and Raymond stated: “The shape of the world’s future will be determined not only by changes in the objective conditions of world politics, but also by the meanings people ascribe to these conditions.” Terrorism is presently a major factor in international relations and has impacted the world to change in many significant ways. Terrorism is a political ideology that has been problematic in defining definitely because of its various interpretations around the world, as well as the fact that it is constantly evolving. Since the terrorist events of 9/11, the lives of many have been changed forever. A small group of individuals, which are a mere fraction of the population of the world, have managed to impact and shape the way international and domestic relations are looked at and handled. People question how secure and safe they feel due to uncertainty of public safety because of events such as 9/11. The war on terrorism in the 21st century has certainly and inevitably changed the landscape for global politics. However, the relationship between terrorism and global politics is troublesome and in ways problematic to describe accurately. Both terrorism and global politics individually are complicated phenomenon. It is erroneous to propose that one is responsible for the other or vice versa, but they are inextricably and inevitably linked. In the study of international relations, there are multiple theories and theoretical perspectives. In this essay, realism and liberalism

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