Over the past decade Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) regulatory statutes, treaties, and sanctions have significantly decreased in their efficacy to prevent state and non-state actors from proliferating WMD materials, information, and technology. The World Summit failed miserably to agree upon a singular stance on any particular WMD issue during the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference sending a clear message that WMD counter-proliferation efforts are no longer a priority. [1] To understand why the NPT Conference failed one must first delve into the historical significance of WMD regulatory statutes, treaties, and sanctions. In 1899, the first Hague Peace Conference was held in an effort, “to outlaw weapons and methods of
…show more content…
[5] Despite these global efforts, key states like the U.S. have adopted counterproductive policies which have hindered treaty-based efforts to control arms and effect disarmament. [6] The U.S.’s policy commonly referred to as “selective-multilateralism” has led to increased skepticism of international efforts to deter and control WMD. A separate yet more concerning U.S. policy is that of “counter-proliferation” which equates to U.S.’s use of unilateral force as its primary means in combating perceived WMD threats with or without the United Nations Security Council’s approval. [7] These U.S. policies have ignited a drive within state actors to acquire nuclear weapons in an effort to deter would be aggressors from striking; while facilitating the means for terrorists to potentially acquire nuclear weapons and/or materials. WMDs pose a clear and present danger to the U.S. and our allies; especially today in a World filled with Islamic terror groups with apocalyptic aspirations to use WMD against the U.S. and state actors proliferating nuclear materials at an unprecedented level; not observed since the Cold
[5] Despite these global efforts, key states like the U.S. have adopted counterproductive policies which have hindered treaty-based efforts to control arms and effect disarmament. [6] The U.S.’s policy commonly referred to as “selective-multilateralism” has led to increased skepticism of international efforts to deter and control WMD. A separate yet more concerning U.S. policy is that of “counter-proliferation” which equates to U.S.’s use of unilateral force as its primary means in combating perceived WMD threats with or without the United Nations Security Council’s approval. [7] These U.S. policies have ignited a drive within state actors to acquire nuclear weapons in an effort to deter would be aggressors from striking; while facilitating the means for terrorists to potentially acquire nuclear weapons and/or materials. WMDs pose a clear and present danger to the U.S. and our allies; especially today in a World filled with Islamic terror groups with apocalyptic aspirations to use WMD against the U.S. and state actors proliferating nuclear materials at an unprecedented level; not observed since the Cold