Wmd's Able To Be Used Ethically In Time Of War

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.

However, it is difficult to make a case for the ethics in the use of the atomic bombing of Japan. Although it may have been needed to end the war, war, in any manner, is never ethical and all those innocent people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki should not have died.

On September 11, 2015 the greatest act of terror known was committed at the World Trade Center, as well as the Pentagon. The terrorist group known as al-Quaeda coordinated an attack by hijacking U.S. commercial flights and sending two planes into the World Trade Center and another into the Pentagon. Luckily, a fourth flight was retaken by the passengers and could not reach its target, yet sadly it crashed in a Pennsylvanian valley. This event broke the hearts of American citizens and citizens worldwide, and the actions coming after wards would have a huge impact on America.

In August of 1945, two nuclear bombs were dropped on Japan, consequently, killing tens of thousands of civilians due to radiation, burns, or turning them immediately into ash. The monstrous bomb sneaks up on innocent civilians and rips their life from them in one foul swoop. The Atomic bomb kills masses of people at one time, but can also save masses of people’s lives from the ongoing war. Herein lies the conflict, since the nuclear bomb is extremely lethal, but effective, should it be used in war? Do you believe that this act was ethical? The atomic bomb should have never been used in past wars and should never be used today because its deadly side effects.

The use of nuclear weaponry, or threat thereof, in a time of war could be a major aspect in the result of the war. It could either further progress the length and casualty occurrence in the war, or it could result in an immediate halt of conflict due to the amount of casualties and catastrophic damage from the bomb. However, just because the use of such weaponry is potentially necessary, does not mean it is ethical. The chaos caused by a nuclear weapon has the potential to scar the lives

Perhaps the most controversial and heavily scrutinized issue of the twentieth century was President Harry Truman’s decision to unleash atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the summer of 1945. While the sequence of events preceding that fateful summer morning of August 6,1945 are fully understood, the motives behind Truman’s actions are shrouded in controversy. Top military officials publicly denounced the use of such a horrendous weapon, while the obvious advantages to the bomb, traditionalists argue, was a shortened Pacific War. Parallactic views between traditional beliefs and revisionist theories suggest that the issue is still very much unresolved. Why is the issue so hotly debated? Partially because of the overwhelming

The result of World War II was affected by many different factors. One major factor which affected the war was the weapons and artillery used during the war. Since the beginnings of time, weapons have always been around. From swords and knives to nuclear weapons and missiles, weapons have evolved greatly throughout the years. The weapons and artillery used in World War II basically were evolved types of weaponry that were used during World War I (Military History 1).

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

On august 6th 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, and 3 days later, they dropped another on the city of Nagasaki. The new weapons completely decimated the cities, and killed tens of thousands of people. Japan announced they would surrender to the allies a few days later on august 15. The United States justified their using of the bombs as a means to end the war without an invasion of Japan that would have resulted in thousands of more deaths on each side. While the Japanese did surrender shortly after the bombings, there is ample evidence to suggest that their surrender was imminent, and the use of the atomic bomb only accelerated peace. Through this essay, I will critically analyze justifications on the usage of the bombings, and potential results on this devastating new weapon.

The use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has been long debated hotly. The main argument against the use of such weapons is the enormous loss of life, particularly civilian, that occurs when they are deployed. I believe that the use of WMDs is justified in some instances, particularly in the past.

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

The previously accepted nature of war stemmed from the Clausewitzian trinity: war is emotional, an experience wrought with passion, violence, and enmity; uncertainty, chance, and friction pervade the medium of war; however, because war is not an end in itself, and because, as a means, it is subordinate to its political aims, war must be subject to reason (Clausewitz, 89). With the first employment of nuclear weapons, however, strategists and military theorists began to question Clausewitz’s foundational ideas (Winkler, 58). Similarly, Allan Winkler, in agreeing with Bernard Brodie’s thesis, opines that the advent of nuclear weapons fundamentally changed the nature of war. Winkler’s assertion stems from his argument that such a nuclear duel would yield a post-war environment incapable of recovery for any parties involved (62). He further describes Brodie’s realization that “[t]he atomic bomb is not just another and more destructive weapon to be added to an already long list. It is something which threatens to make the rest of the list relatively unimportant.” (62) Ultimately, Winkler abridges Brodie’s assessment in stating that “the United States was caught in the paradox of having to prepare for a war it did not plan to fight.” (63)

Ever since the beginning of the terrorist attacks on American soil, the War on Terror has been involved in the lives of Americans and nations near us. The War on Terror’s background originated through conflicts between warring countries in the Middle East; U.S. involvement started when a terrorist guided plane crashed into the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 in New York City. The attack was suspected to be the work of the middle-eastern terrorist group Al-Qaeda. The U.S. military, under the leadership of then commander-in-chief George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” on the terrorist group and the fighting began.

The Global War on Terror is a military campaign led by the United States and the United Kingdom and supported by other NATO members. It was originally against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations with the purpose of eliminating them. This paper discusses how the Bush Administration handled the War on Terror as well as different aspects of it, including its terminology, its objectives, its military operations and criticism against it.