The term weapon of mass destruction has been in existence since the 1930’s. Weapons of mass destruction can be better identified as nuclear weapons, biological weapons, chemical weapons, or radiological weapons. A true definition of weapons of mass destruction is “any destructive device; any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector; any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life”. Weapons of mass destruction, also known as WMD’s, can be described as nuclear bombs, missiles, toxic chemicals, or hand grenades, artillery shells, and even ammunition often used in cannons. . These weapons of mass destruction are used in some countries on a daily basis. The sole purpose for using WMD’s should be for protection, however, if used by persons other than the military they can be used for nefarious reasons. This paper will identify reasons why the UK has joined forces with other organizations to stop the use of weapons of mass destruction, and their reasoning behind it. It will also illustrate why I believe that weapons of mass destruction are necessary for the protection of our people, our country. The United Kingdom has taken a stand and plans to stop the widespread use of weapons of mass destruction. The United Kingdom will need to use its weapons of mass destruction to save the lives of soldier’s during war. While the UK government has weapons of mass destruction, they do not believe in using them because they believe weapons of mass destruction raises serious humanitarian and security... ... middle of paper ... ...Mass Destruction.” Britannica School.Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 2013. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. http://school.eb.com/levels/high/article/39811 “United Kingdom Government’s Legal Position on Chemical Weapon Use by Syrian Regime.” Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d. Web. 15 Nov. 2013 http://www.cfr.org/weapons-of-mass-destruction/ “UK must keep Trident nuclear deterrent- David Cameron.” BBC News. BBC, 04 Apr. 2013. Web. 18 Nov. 2013 Arms Control Association http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/ukprofile “Tell Us What You Think of Gov.UK.” Countering Weapons Proliferation. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Nov. 2013 Proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) MI-5 The Security Service https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/proliferation-of-wmd.html Dudley, William. “Weapons of Mass Destruction.” Greenhaven Press. (2005) 30 Nov. 2013
Symonds, Peter. "World Socialist Web Site ." US think tank report weighs up "grim future' of nuclear war (2013).
"USCCB Renews Call for Nuclear Arms Reduction : News Headlines." - Catholic Culture. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 May 2014.
Sherman, Brad. “Stopping Iran’s Nuclear Program.” Vital Speeches Of The Day 74.2 (2008): 66-68. History Reference Center. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
Scott D. Sagan, the author of chapter two of “More Will Be Worse”, looks back on the deep political hostilities, numerous crises, and a prolonged arms race in of the cold war, and questions “Why should we expect that the experience of future nuclear powers will be any different?” The author talks about counter arguments among scholars on the subject that the world is better off without nuclear weapons. In this chapter a scholar named Kenneth Waltz argues that “The further spread of nuclear weapons may well be a stabilizing factor in international relations.” He believes that the spread of nuclear weapons will have a positive implications in which the likely-hood of war decreases and deterrent and defensive capabilities increase. Although there
...e bodies and ending the life. This form of weapons challenges the notion that power works to create and maintain bodies, this “necropolitical force works to extinguish life, rather than create it. This sort of backwards-ing of our system(western world) is a “queering force”, and further works to alienate the “terrorist”.
The development of the atomic bomb and chemical warfare forever changed the way people saw the world. It was a landmark in time for which there was no turning back. The constant balancing of the nuclear super powers kept the whole of humankind on the brink of atomic Armageddon. Fear of nuclear winter and the uncertainty of radiation created its own form of a cultural epidemic in the United States. During these tense times in human history officials made controversial decisions such as the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Dangerous biological experiments and bombs tests were carried out in the name of the greater good and national defense. Some historians and scientists argue that the decisions and acts carried out by the U.S. during World War II and the Cold War were unethical because of the direct damage they did. The United States' decisions were moral because it can be proven their actions were aimed at achieving a greater good and those that were put in potential danger volunteered and were informed of the risk.
People often deal with moral dilemmas in which they have two options that are equally right and wrong. If one side from a situation is thought to be right and the other wrong altogether depends on the person’s moral view. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, some people may or may not agree that the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary. This topic is a moral dilemma however the Japanese did attempt to seek peace several ways to end the war and the United States’ justifications for bombing their cities appear irrational.
to the American population with the humanitarian views of the weapons of mass destruction the
There are several locations at which Trident can be housed until the fleet is retired at the end of the 2020’s. The primary challenge for the UK is finding a base capable of both docking Vanguard subs and storing D-5 nuclear warheads. For the sake of maintaining a basic level of independence in terms of national defense, Westminster intends to keep Trident in Great Britain. Unfortunately for them, the cost of renovating Burrow-in-Furness in Cumbria, the building site of the Vanguard subs, to meet the needs of the Trident program would be impractical during a political and economic divorce. Davenport Dockyard, Western Europe’s largest naval base, in Plymouth seems a most proper place to dock the fleet. But, the storage of nuclear warheads in such a densely populated area raises many safety concerns. Another attractive British port which could account for the subs and missiles but raises many safety concerns is Milford Haven in Wales. The port is deep enough, but the traffic is worse than 4:45 on the Beltway. The risk of a collision between a Trident sub and another sub or an oil tanker, next to several oil and gas refineries mind you, should be limited at all
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by man. There are many reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party, war is the last remaining option. Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun wrote in fourteenth-century Spain, that “War is a universal and inevitable aspect of life, ordained by God to the same extent as the sky and the earth, the heat and the cold. The question of whether to fright is not a significant moral question because fighting is constant; the minor decision not to fight this war will be made only in the context of knowing that another war will present itself soon enough because it is simply always there.” (Peter S. Themes. The Just War)
In 1945, when the Americans bombed Hiroshima, Japan, approximately 140,000 men and women were instantly killed by the effects of American nuclear defense. With such extreme brutality and force how many people must die for one to finally realize the strengths of nuclear bombs and what damage they can cause. Nuclear weapons should be outlawed because they kill thousands of innocent humans at a time, destroy the environment, and inviolate human’s right to moral and personal freedoms.
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by the human race. There are many different reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party and anger burns with a fiery passion, war is the last remaining option. Obviously, the purpose of any war is to win. How are wars won? Perhaps if we were to ask a member of the Defense Department during the early stages of the war in Iraq, his answer might be, “To win this war we must force the enemy into submission by means of ethical warfare.” If we were to ask a marine in the Second World War what he was told by his commanding officer he would reply, “To close with the enemy and destroy him.” (Fussell, 763).
In comparison to nuclear weapons, chemical weapons are less damaging, but are easier to acquire. Both threats could be delivered in a containe...
When faced with the issue of alleviating poverty or saving nature, many would agree with the following statement: as a society we ought to use available resources and funds to help the poor. In his article “Feeding people versus Saving Nature” Rolston opposes this position and asserts his view that there are times when we ought to choose to save nature instead of feeding the poor. I will argue in favor of Rolston’s argument and against those such as Singer, who strongly opposes the notion that preserving nature and allowing people to unnecessarily die is morally wrong. In reality there are many ways in which we can address the issue of global poverty without resorting to destroying natural ecosystems that we are dependent on.
Joy analyzes how humanity gradually transitioned from its previous desires to advance nuclear, biological and chemical technologies of the 20th century. He describes how advancements in weapons of mass destruction were a byproduct of the cold war and the need of major military powers and large governments to assert ...