Wmd (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.

With sources dating back to the late 1960s, North Korea’s nuclear weapons program has expanded to be a useful instrument of the government’s security. Its principal motivations for developing the nuclear weapons are as follows: to block foreign pressure, create an international impact and preserve the terms and conditions of the DPRK (ruling party of North Korea). In contrast, Iran 's motivations to develop strategic weapons appear to be more complex than that of North Korea. Iran 's efforts to develop nuclear, chemical and

Nuclear Weapons have persisted to be the decisive deterrent to any assailant, and the best means of establishing peace. There are many different views on nuclear weapons, even though they cost an extravagate amount of money; they come with positive aspects’. In fact nuclear weapons are one of the greatest reasons that nations do not want to go to war, but alternately, strive to inquire clarification through negotiations. First and foremost, it is very important to analyze just how nuclear weapons prevent war.

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.

Since their desired effect is ‘shock and awe’, WMD would be an attractive option to a cowardly force, seeking to inflict the most psychological and physical effects. Not all attacks require ‘mass casualty’ status to garner attention. According to the National Counterterrorism Council (2008), 11,800 terrorist attacks resulted in 54,000 deaths, injuries, and kidnappings. Excluding the outcome of 9/11, al Qaeda employs close-range attacks and generally inflicts casualties to small numbers. Since overt forces are stronger in the Middle East, I would anticipate a CBRN attack within their homeland, as the indigenous framework of sympathizers and extremists can deliver a larger-scale and better-organized attack. In consideration of Yamin’s (2013) findings, countries with terrorist links, such as Syria and Pakistan have publicly declared they produce and stockpile CBW. If terrorists receive financial backing and political shelter from these countries, there is a possibility of these weapons coming into their

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

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 nuclear bomb is an interesting phenomenon that has captured the fascination of scholars, academics, politicians, and the media to bring curiosity and fear together. The first and only use of nuclear weapons occurred in 1945 during the Second World War, wiping out over 200,000 Japanese civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Nuclear bombs, were now viewed as the number one threat that could potentially destroy our planet and the human race. Since 1945 nuclear weapons have since been a strong threat that has imposed a psychological anxiety for world leaders as this threat has expanded to fifty countries with the

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.

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

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).

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.

Weapons of mass destruction, or WMDs, are, according to the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission (WMDC), “the most inhumane of all weapons and are rightly called weapons of mass destruction and weapons of terror” (WMDC 2006 p 229). Primary regulatory efforts geared toward controlling the attainment, maintenance, and use of weapons of mass destruction is extremely important and is regulated by international law. Treaties and agreements are initiated and enforced through entities like the United Nations and other governmental and non-governmental agencies as attempts to keep WMDs out of the hands of certain groups and individuals while enforcing responsible measures of those who currently possess them.

Proliferation among nations is becoming more accessible due to the increased technology. Not even the technical barrier of obtaining the required nuclear material is that much of a barrier today. “Thirty-six countries with nuclear power plants produce at least enough plutonium for forty nuclear weapons per year from each such plant”. Nuclear proliferation correlates positively with

The U.K and Paris built nuclear weapons due to the impending Soviet military threat and the reduction in the credibility of the U.S guarantee to NATO alliances after the Soviet Union threatened retaliation. China on the other hand developed the bomb because of the U.S’s threat to bomb Beijing at the end of the Korean War. Furthermore the emergence of hostility in Sino-Soviet relations in the 1960s further inspired the “robust and affordable security” of nuclear weapons since without it, China’s deterrence was thought to be inadequate compared to nuclear states. (Goldstein, 1992) Following the development of the bomb in China in 1964, India who had just fought a war with China in 1962 felt compelled to follow in its footsteps. Then following India’s nuclear test explosion, Pakistan felt it needed to step up its nuclear program facing a recently hostile neighbor with both nuclear weapons and conventional military security. Ultimately as a result of this domino effect, there have been no conflicts between these previous hostile states due to the generation of nuclear weapons; further emphasizing the key role nuclear weapons plays in the stability of international politics.