Chemical and Biological Weapons Imagine waking up from a good night’s sleep and finding your whole family dead. As you stumble around your house looking for the cause of your family’s death, a strong chemical smell comes over you. It is the stinging smell of chlorine. Everyone agrees no one should have to endure this painful death by chemicals or biological weapons. What most people don’t know is that civilizations have been using this brutal war tactic since the 6th century, in which the Assyrians poisoned enemy wells with a fungus that made the enemy incoherent. Even though most people agree that chemical and biological weapons are horrific, there is a conflicting argument as to whether there should be a total elimination versus the control of these weapons. In order to understand both sides of this conflict one must know what are chemical and biological weapons. A chemical weapon is any weapon that uses a manufactured chemical to kill people. Modern chemical and biological weapons focus on condensed chemical or biological agents, meaning that it takes a lot less of the chemical to kill the same number of people. Whereas, a biological weapon uses a bacteria to kill people. A modern biological weapon would use a strain of bacteria or a virus that would kill thousands of people. The first significant use of chemical and biological weapons were during World War 1, and the world quickly and unanimously decided that these weapons went too far. The problem that started today’s conflict on the elimination versus the control of chemical and biological weapons is that terrorists and rogue leaders don't pay attention to international treaties. Proponents for the elimination of chemical and biological we... ... middle of paper ... ...l and biological weapons no matter what. They argue that having the control to use these weapons will level the playing field if the need ever arises. The regulation or elimination of chemical and biological weapons has huge societal impacts going into the future. Both sides of this argument greatly understand the severity of these weapons. There usage not only impacts certain regions, but the whole world. The usage of chemical and biological weapons will continue to be a controversial topic because there will be technological advances that make the chemicals and organisms much more deadly. Now is the time to understand and make decisions on the use of chemical and biological weapons before it gets out of hand. However, human civilization has had these “moral’’ arguments from the beginning of time and solving them will be one of our greatest challenges.
As we move into the Twentieth Century the similarities are almost identical. The First World War has shaped not only modern warfare but even produced global attention to the brutal and inhumane death toll of the war. As stated in the Geneva Protocol, which prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare, which was signed in 1925? While this was a welcomed step, the Protocol had a number of significant short comings, including the fact that it did not prohibit the development, production or stockpiling of chemical weapons.
Guillemin, J. (2005). Biological weapons: From the invention of state-sponsored programs to contemporary bioterrorism Columbia University Press.
The purpose of this essay is to deal with the fact that chemical warfare should be brought back to modern warfare strategies. As Warren Rudman said, “And they will tell you unequivocally that if we have a chemical or biological attack or a nuclear attack anywhere in this country, they are unprepared to deal with it today, and that is of high urgency.” Rudman’s words are true in what they say and that we should do everything to counter-act his statement. Biological weapons are a key to outstanding success in war and therefore, I strongly suggest that chemical warfare is an effective and producible weapon tactic that can be used on today’s battlefield.
Lyell, Lord. "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS:THE POOR MAN'S BOMB." North Atlantic Assembly AN 255 STC(96) 10. North Atlantic Assembly, 04 Oct. 1996. Web. 26 May 2014.
Chemical warfare is the use of chemical agents to injure, incapacitate, or kill enemy combatants. First seen during World War I (WWI), the devastating effects of widespread chemical warfare were eventually deemed inhumane by an international consensus and chemical agents were subsequently banned from use. Still, despite the tendency of the modern warrior to overlook antiquated tactics, the threat of chemical agents in the theater of war cannot be entirely discounted by today's Soldier. By analyzing the application, evolution, and overall legacy of chemical weapons in the Great War we can work to minimize the danger they pose in current conflicts and those of the near future. For it is only by understanding the past that we can understand the present and shape tomorrow.
With the continuous advancements in biomedicine follows a continuous proliferation of bioterrorism, which uses biological agents for malicious purposes (Anderson 2). More specifically, bioterrorism is a method of terrorism that intentionally releases or disseminates biological weapons that may be in natural occurring or human-modified form (Botulism- Definition). Although bioterrorism is considered as a recent dilemma, the use of biological weapon predates recorded history, during the ancient times where biological toxins were extracted from plants and animals and ap...
Broyles, Janell. Chemical and Biological Weapons in a Post-9/11 World. New York: Rosen Pub. Group, 2005. Print.
Chemical weapons have been used throughout the world dating back to 430 BC, when they were used against the Spartans in the Peloponnesian War. Although they were not nearly as harmful as they are now, they still had devastating effects. Very little good has ever come from the use of chemical ...
The use of chemicals in weapons dates back thousands of years, from poison arrows to poisonous fumes. However chemical warfare took a new approach during World War I. The first large scale attack was chlorine in april 1915. World War II brought on a entire new spectrum of chemical weapons and many countries obtained large stockpiles.1There are four different categories in which chemical weapons are organized based on what the effects are. The first category is blister agents which cause blistering of the skin. The second category is choking agents which cause the airway passages in the victim's throat to close resulting in death. The third category is nerve agents which causes damages to the victims nerves. The most recent uses of chemical weapons was on august 21, 2013 in Damascus ,Syria which resulted in numerous casualties.2
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...
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, chemical warfare is “tactical warfare using incendiary mixtures, smokes, or irritant, burning, poisonous, or asphyxiating gasses.” (Chemical warfare, 2011) It is a temptingly appealing way to dispose of one’s enemies without drawing a sword or lifting a gun. Chemical weapon agents, or CWAs as they are more commonly referred, are classified in five main groups: riot control agents, nerve agents, blister agents, blood agents, and choking agents. Each is devastating on those caught in their paths and, for decades, scientists have worked on creating easier to wield, more lethal types. Today, there are eight countries known to possess chemical weapons (OPCW) but, according to new archaeological discoveries, this may not only be a cause for concern prevalent in the modern world.
Millions have died. Billions are afraid that they may be next. War is the last thing that anyone needs and chemical warfare is todays age. Countries have developed thousands of different chemical weapons, such as adamsite, a sickening agent, tear gas, and malodorants, things that smell so bad that can literally knock you unconscious. There are many downsides to chemical warfare, and even though chemical warfare may have helpful attributes, it will bring the downfall of the human race. This will happen by sickness, terrorism, rebellion, total destruction, and inevitably death. Many believe the same that I do, that if chemical warfare breaks out the whole world could be destroyed.
Pita, R. (2009). Toxin weapons: From World War I to jihadi terrorism. Toxin Reviews, 28(4), 219-237. doi:10.3109/1556950903246136
In comparison to nuclear weapons, chemical weapons are less damaging, but are easier to acquire. Both threats could be delivered in a containe...
In conclusion, it is clear that a biological weapon is wrong. When Saddam Hussein threatened to turn the Persian Gulf War into “the mother of all wars” the world shook with the possible implications. The United States managed to divert the course of the war such as this did not happen. In other situation these results have not been as successful, unfortunately, and many people have suffered and died. I hope that civilization is moving towards total illumination of biological weaponry.