Question 3:
Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are capable of generating large-scale effects and are intended to cause serious injury or death. The indiscriminate nature of these weapons is distinctly different than conventional weapons so that there is an inherent threat to civilian populations. Whereas a soldier targets an individual in the crosshairs of his gun, once a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon is released there is a greater level of separation between the user and the victim(s) and no differentiation between those whom it affects. This breeds the psychological terror that is produced by just the possibility of the use of such weapons. For these reasons, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons deserve the label of …show more content…
the 1918, rare strain of flu that was “twenty-five times more deadly than ordinary influenzas” (Kolata 7) and eventually killed 2.5-5% of the global population (Disease in Human History Part II, February 19). However BWs as they exist now are unlikely to cause that level of damage. Biological weapons are limited due to the success of modern public health, antibiotics, and vaccinations, but also by a pathogen’s own limitations, e.g. HIV/AIDS naturally takes very long to kill someone. However, for actors desiring to use BWs, and with high levels of motivation, sophistication, and resources, there are ways to surpass barriers. For example, HIV/AIDS used concurrently with Tuberculosis could initiate a syndemic capable of being thirty to fifty times more lethal than either one alone (Revenge of the Germs, March 2). Genetic modification is a possibility that would be extremely difficult for a nation combat, but this method is also challenging to execute. The success of BWs is limited, but occurrences such as the Anthrax Letter Attacks in the United States, prove that they do have a psychological element and are very effective, similar to chemical weapons, a small amount can have huge consequences. Generally, terrorist attacks utilizing biological weapons are not likely because it would require an organization to have overcome …show more content…
However, the category of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ may have become too broad. They all present rather equal threats; chemical and biological weapons are not completely, effectively controlled and their use by enemies is difficult to anticipate, while nuclear weapons, arguably more destructive and effective than CBWs, practically control themselves by mutually assured destruction. Subcategories may be useful in separating WMDs based on threat level which would take into account probability of use, past success, contagiousness (BWs), etc. It may be difficult to compile, assess, and compare all of this information, but the result could be possibly more effective than the all-encompassing ‘WMD’. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are capable of a variety of effects including psychological terror, widespread injury, illness, and death, and their depersonalized, indiscriminate nature separates them from conventional arms, making ‘weapons of mass destruction’ an appropriate
Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are capable of generating large-scale effects and are intended to cause serious injury or death. The indiscriminate nature of these weapons is distinctly different than conventional weapons so that there is an inherent threat to civilian populations. Whereas a soldier targets an individual in the crosshairs of his gun, once a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon is released there is a greater level of separation between the user and the victim(s) and no differentiation between those whom it affects. This breeds the psychological terror that is produced by just the possibility of the use of such weapons. For these reasons, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons deserve the label of …show more content…
the 1918, rare strain of flu that was “twenty-five times more deadly than ordinary influenzas” (Kolata 7) and eventually killed 2.5-5% of the global population (Disease in Human History Part II, February 19). However BWs as they exist now are unlikely to cause that level of damage. Biological weapons are limited due to the success of modern public health, antibiotics, and vaccinations, but also by a pathogen’s own limitations, e.g. HIV/AIDS naturally takes very long to kill someone. However, for actors desiring to use BWs, and with high levels of motivation, sophistication, and resources, there are ways to surpass barriers. For example, HIV/AIDS used concurrently with Tuberculosis could initiate a syndemic capable of being thirty to fifty times more lethal than either one alone (Revenge of the Germs, March 2). Genetic modification is a possibility that would be extremely difficult for a nation combat, but this method is also challenging to execute. The success of BWs is limited, but occurrences such as the Anthrax Letter Attacks in the United States, prove that they do have a psychological element and are very effective, similar to chemical weapons, a small amount can have huge consequences. Generally, terrorist attacks utilizing biological weapons are not likely because it would require an organization to have overcome …show more content…
However, the category of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ may have become too broad. They all present rather equal threats; chemical and biological weapons are not completely, effectively controlled and their use by enemies is difficult to anticipate, while nuclear weapons, arguably more destructive and effective than CBWs, practically control themselves by mutually assured destruction. Subcategories may be useful in separating WMDs based on threat level which would take into account probability of use, past success, contagiousness (BWs), etc. It may be difficult to compile, assess, and compare all of this information, but the result could be possibly more effective than the all-encompassing ‘WMD’. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are capable of a variety of effects including psychological terror, widespread injury, illness, and death, and their depersonalized, indiscriminate nature separates them from conventional arms, making ‘weapons of mass destruction’ an appropriate