Weapon Of Mass Destruction Essays

Weapons of Mass destruction is defined as a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans and other life forms and/or cause great damage to man-made structures, natural structures, or the biosphere in general.In conclusion, Weapons of mass destruction consist of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks.The first noted weapon of mass destruction goes back to 430 B.C.An attack of mass destruction does not only affect the target but also affects the entire world and we must always keep this in mind if we want to continue to live.As stated earlier I recommend the criminal justices practitioners around the world need to continue to work together to assess for weapons of mass destruction and treat al...

Weapons of mass destruction are divided into biological, chemical, and nuclear devices (Porteus 1).Federation of .The biological weapons of mass destruction most likely to be used in an attack are anthrax, botulinum toxin, plague, ricin, small pox, tularemia, and viral hemorrhagic fevers (Porteus 1).Weapons of mass destruction are at the epicenter of this constant threat against peace and life.... middle of paper ... .

Almost all of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were destroyed or otherwise made unusable in the 1990’s.I’m against going to war with them because there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the US government claimed.The US supported a new democratic government within Iraq, which was opposed by various Islamic groups that held power in the country.Iraq did use weapons of mass destruction in the 1980’s but not since then.Using weapons of mass destruction would mean a sure end to his power.

The term “weapons of mass destruction” included the chemical, biological as well as nuclear weapons (Clair 1998).Weapons of Mass Destruction: State Department Oversight of Science Centers Program, 3rd ed.Weapons of Mass Destruction Are Overrated as a Threat to America, 2nd ed.Franklin M. (1999).Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction, 4th ed.What Makes a Weapon One of Mass Destruction, 4th ed.

Throughout the war, the declaration for being at war was so twisted from saying Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, to Iraq “had the ability to make weapons of mass destruction,” (Bovard 250) to freeing the Iraqi people, that it is hard to understand what the end goals of the United States involvement in Iraq was.Finding and destroying all weapons of mass destruction?It seems odd that the United States singled out Iraq when other countries have weapons of mass destruction as well, such as the countries Bush has deemed the “axis of evils” which includes Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan (Jehl 1).Not only have no weapons of mass destruction turned up in almost seven years of conflict in Iraw, but it is also apparent that, fro...

After Saddam refusing to hand his weapons of mass destruction over, war in Iraq began.The one reason war should have took place was because of the weapons of mass destruction and the apparent threat that Iraq cause for a terrorist to take place, but what about the threat that the US cause to the rest of the world?America itself has weapons of mass destruction and they pose a threat and a danger to other countries, but you don’t see anyone calling the US and starting war with them.Some of the reasons for the war were: to eliminate the weapons of mass destruction, to eliminate the threat of international terrorism and to promote democracy in Iraq and surrounding areas.The only reason this war started off was because of the weapons of mass ...

When looking at all the possibilities of why the United States went to war with Iraq you can blame either terrorists, oil, crimes against humanity, or the suspicion of weapons of mass destruction.The United States was able to get inspectors into place to determine if Saddam had really been developing weapons of mass destruction.Those two would be that Iraq and Saddam were purposely harboring terrorists and giving them a safe place to hide from the United States and that the United States believed that Iraq was producing weapons of mass destruction.“We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world.”(Bush) The United States was scared because of their beliefs that Sa...

Development of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction have altogether changed the nature of war.Using weapons of mass destruction for peaceful purposes is always viewed apprehensively, and with doubts.Armies of both the countries equipped with weapons of mass destruction stood face to face for complete one year.The philosophy of war is deeply affected by the advent of weapons of mass destruction.Modern weapon systems and latest war machinery will be required to harness the people with dreadful intentions (Orend, pars.

If the U.S. leaves Iraq alone, they will continue to research and build weapons of mass destruction, and they will use them to kill Americans on a large scale through terrorism.Stopping Iraq’s research of weapons of mass destruction decreases the chance that such weapons fall into the hands of a terrorist organization.I hope that a war can be avoided since I do not want our soldiers or innocent civilians killed.Iraq for the past several years has violated numerous U.N. resolutions that call for destruction of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and allowance of weapons inspectors to monitor the disposal of such weapons.The U.S. aims to get rid of any weapons of mass destruction located in Iraq, which includes Saddam’s palaces.

Regarding weapon of mass destruction, since UN Inspector stated that after the inspection in late 2003 the Iraq government had failed to prove that all weapon of mass destruction were destroyed.I guess that we would never know whether the Bush administration knowingly accept the false intelligence that Iraq had weapon of mass destruction and connection with terrorists or the Bush administration simply misled by incredible intelligence from CIA or other government agencies.Since the western countries generally believed that Saddam had possessed a number of weapon of mass destruction and was intended to use.However, if the Bush administration, based on the intelligence provided by CIA prior to the invasion, truly believed that Iraq had wea...

They can achieve this by overloading the reactor so that it functions as a radiological weapon.Weapons of Mass Destruction Handbook.Weapons of mass destruction : an encyclopedia of worldwide policy, technology, and history.To this end, it is clear that terrorists’ use of weapons of mass destruction is a major threat that must be countered in this century.The potential terrorist targets by the use of weapons of mass destruction are inexhaustible.

Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men.A weapon of mass destruction is a nuclear, radiological, biological, chemical or other weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large number of humans or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g.These weapons were developed initially by industrialized nations liks United States, Japan, Germany etc as a weapon of self defence to deter the enemy against any possible aggression and attack (Deterrence theory of international politics).Thus, based on the arguments above we can easily conclude, this world would have been a much better place, had there been no weapons of mass destruction.References: .

In the 21st century, the less the United States meddles in the affairs of other countries, the less likely the prospect that America and Americans will be targets for terrorism.Although North Korea, Iran, and Iraq are developing (or have acquired) weapons of mass destruction, so are many other nations.What if North Korea, Iran, or Iraq has already sent intelligence operatives or terrorists to the United States with weapons of mass destruction to lie in wait in case a strike is needed in retaliation for a U.S. attempt at regime change?It is too late to stop al Qaeda from targeting America and Americans.In sum, an apparent widening of the current war designed to enhance U.S security could have the opposite effect.

Weapons of Mass Destruction.Where as the rifle kills one man with a bullet, this weapon decimates a city with a single detonation.Transition: What is being done about Nuclear Weapons now that you see they serve no logical purpose besides mass destruction.There is only one weapon of mankind to have been used only once before.The Tsar bomba (Most powerful Nuclear Weapon ever detonated) .

California: Monterey Institute of International Studies Monterey .Despite all these, formal/strategic weapons of every nation have to be regulated and this will reduce chances of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the entire world hence safety can easily be enhanced (Potter and Sokov, 2008).The Nature of the Problem.The large numbers in weapons of mass destruction may be a catalyst leading to deterrence of peace in the entire world or in localized regions but this can be effectively prevented if a much smaller number of non-strategic nuclear warheads were advocated.This therefore creates the need to restrict the acquisition of this new technology and the subsequent use of these weapons of mass destruction.

Types of Chemical Weapons [Electronic Version].One of the goals is to eradicate the fear of Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is the reduction of the possible vehicles like Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles or IBM which can be used as a possible carrier of these so called weapons of mass destruction.Knowing how these weapons of mass destruction can be utilized against peace loving citizens is vital in the fight against terrorism.Stebbins, M. (2006a).We have learned that whatever the type of weapons for mass destruction is there is only one end goal in the usage of such – creating chaos and disruption aside from the blatant disregard to life and property.

One feared of expansion, the other feared of the opposing differences.However, they both agreed on keeping the war at a minimum by agreeing to not allow weapons of mass destruction, etc.In conclusion, the Cold War was a five year war against the Soviet Union and the United States.Hints to the term “Cold War.” .These two weapons of mass destruction were not used, better suggesting the phrase, “Cold War.” If by any means there were to be a weapon of mass destruction aimed at the opposing enemy, then the country responsible for the cause would have to help restore, and fix any damages caused.

During this period, the Soviet Union created their own atomic bomb and the H-Bomb (Hydrogen Bomb) was first created in the United States.However, they both agreed on keeping the war at a minimum by agreeing to not allow weapons of mass destruction, etc.These two weapons of mass destruction were not used, better suggesting the phrase, “Cold War.” If by any means there were to be a weapon of mass destruction aimed at the opposing enemy, then the country responsible for the cause would have to help restore, and fix any damages caused.The Cold War was a five year war against the Soviet Union and the United States.“They agree that if such an armed attack occurs, each of them will assist the party or parties so attacked.” (DBQ 4) .

In both these case people debated and argued about going to war .Yes many people were killed and injured but these examples show that there is definitely situations when a country is obligated to go to war.Nicholas Lemann “ How It Came To War” The New Yorker March 31, 2003 Editorial “Weapons That Weren’t There” The Washington Post October 7,2004 Lionel Beehner “Al-Qaeda in Iraq: Resurging or Splintering?Nicholas Lemann wrote in an article in the New Yorker magazine that “Everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein is truly evil, everyone agrees he has weapons of mass destruction”.A report in the Washington Post said “The new report from the Iraq Survey Group has confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt what most people have assumed for the past yea...

As you can see from this essay we can only overcome terrorism by negotiating.But this action will have great consequences; there will be many innocent lives lost including those of our soldiers and the country will be wrecked as side affects of using all types of different weapons.Information about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction is already in public domain from UN reports and from Iraqi defectors, this clearly points that Iraq continues to posses these weapons and also shows that Iraq, has refurbished sites formally associated with the production of chemical and biological agents and it indicates that Iraq remains able to manufacture these agents and deliver them via bomb, shells artillery rockets and ballistic missiles.We have alrea...

Smallpox has been eradicated because it was proven to be extremely deadly in weapons tests and so it was practically wiped out.New York: Dublin, 1999. .One may think that these weapons of mass destruction will only cause, well destruction, but what people dont know is that they have already done some good.Chemical and Biological Warfare.California: Santa Ana, 2003Solomon, Brian, ed.

In as much as they may have no intentions of causing any danger, they sometimes act irrationally and this might lead to mass murders.Ahuja, N. (2002).A short textbook of psychiatry (5th Ed.).However, such judgment should not only be based on one’s mental status but also on one’s perpetration of a crime.Mass destruction should be evaluated on the basis of a person’s motives and not only on their mental stability (Ahuja 2002).

The threat of nuclear retaliation, even if the possibility of tracing the weapons back to its source were thought to be low, it should be enough to deter any rational state from using a nuclear weapon against another nuclear-weapon state, or a country under the protection of one.As on date, states have been reluctant to use Weapons of mass Destruction because of political retaliation, and similarly terrorists have also not used WMD.Nuclear terrorism can take many forms, including stealing or making nuclear weapon, either for blackmail or detonation, attack or seizure of a nuclear weapon site/ plant, procurement of fissile material, contamination or threat to contaminate targets using radioactive material.Any such group would like to have...

McVeigh’s anger with the federal government on how his colleagues was treated at the Waco incident cause massive destruction and the loss of 168 human beings lives.Only the after mass was on display.In both of these examples as stated neither gain the grandeur nature of the 9/11 attack because of they were not televised live as the event occurred, they did not have the notoriety or followers as Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorist group, they not have the funding of group capable of amassing weapons of mass destruction, and they were not the all for nothing suicidal group that would have giving their life for a cause.Boston: Prentice Hall, 2012.Homeland security.

Hollywood films are using the stereotype of Muslims being terrorists in order to generate profit, such as ‘The Siege’ movie on a terrorist attack in New York, Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis (Crude and exaggerated) Demonizing Muslims as evil, dangerous and threatening, reinforcing prejudices.It has been said that media representations often reflect the social and political concerns of the age in which they are created.Nevertheless, “the Bush administration was undeterred by the paucity of evidence and the failure to find a nuclear weapons program or any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and remained relentlessly focused on the nuclear weapons ambitions of North Korea and Iran, all the while ignoring or minimizing diplomatic efforts...

Maybe we will see them in the next big war or if governments fall so will laws and they can be used by militias now due to technology making them easier to make.Thats proof that advancement in Chemistry and Technology should be controlled and that not all of Chemistry’s history is good history.They can kill hundreds of people in an area in less than seconds.I think the huge governments are the only thing keeping them contained.Chemical Weapons are weapons of mass destruction that are unbelievably dangerous and lethal.

The claim about Saddam Hussein is more of a fallacy, as they don’t know if he has actual weapons or what his entire game plan was.Saddam Hussein Is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction.He said things such as: Iraq’s technological abilities, their weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein’s previous threats against the US.It was used to Hussein to be taken under control.remains the nature of the regime itself.

Though the cost of war may rise and may cause a slight decrease in its occurrence because the cost may exceed the gains, I don’t think that is a reasonable reason to believe those in possession would not use them.A nuclear weapon is defined as “a weapon of mass destruction whose power derives from nuclear reaction”.I think the belief that possession of nuclear weapons by every state would create a peaceful world is very illogical.Nuclear weapons themselves represent death and great levels of destruction.Although today’s states in possession of these weapons may not have used them that doesn’t mean states in the future wouldn’t use them had they been permitted to.

There were 167 states that signed in the Chemical Weapon Convention, but some of the countries like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Egypt, North Korea, and Israel still used such weapon; this reflect the successful and also the failure of UN’s implementation that could not impose all the refused state to respect the treaties and also reflected its ineffective to dispose of all this chemical weapons at those states.The most concern of the weapon of mass destruction that challenge the lives of humanitarian and the global environment are the nuclear, biological, and the chemical.The United Nation has served as a forum for number of processes such as the UN Programme of Action on the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons that this program has th...

[23] Aside from being required to withdraw from Kuwait, Hussein continued to fail to honor and fulfill many obligations such as ‘to allow international weapons inspectors to witness the destruction of weapons of mass destruction; to cease from developing new weapons; to destroy ballistic missiles with range farther than 150 kilometers; to cease from supporting terrorist groups and prevent them from operating within Iraq; accept financial costs for the damage from the Gulf War; to account for missing Kuwaitis and stolen Kuwait properties; and end his gross violations of the human rights of his people.’[24] For almost a decade, Hussein tried to circumvent the economic sanctions imposed by the United Nations.The objective according to the U...