Recent Articles



































Weapons of mass destruction



         


Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) are weapons designed to kill large numbers of people, typically targeting civilians and military personnel alike. They are generally considered to have a psychological impact rather than a strictly military usefulness.

Though the phrase was coined in 1937 to describe aerial bombardment, the types of weapons today considered to be in this class are often referred to as NBC weapons or ABC weapons:

They are also known as weapons of indiscriminate destruction, weapons of mass disruption and weapons of catastrophic effect.

The term has recently come in wide use in connection with the 2002 Iraq disarmament crisis and the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that became a pretext for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

[Top]

Semantic Disputes

The phrase weapons of mass destruction is the source of various semantic disputes. The phrase originated in 1937 to describe the use of strategic bombers by the German Luftwaffe during the Spanish Civil War. By 2003, weapons of mass destruction had become such a controversial phrase that the American Dialect Society dubbed it the Words of the Year for 2002. During the Cold War, WMD exclusively meant nuclear weapons. Indeed, modern nuclear weapons are vastly more destructive than either biological or chemical weapons. Chemical weapons expert Gert Harigel believes that, as a result, only nuclear weapons should be called weapons of mass destruction. Adding to the fact that only nuclear weapons cause destruction; Radiological, Chemical and Biological weapons do not cause destruction; they just kill.

The modern use of WMD to refer to NBC weapons was coined by UN Resolution 687 in 1991. This resolution refers to the "threat that all weapons of mass destruction pose to peace and security", and mentions in particular nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and the three relevant treaties:

United States law defines WMD as "to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people" using chemicals, a disease organism, radiation or radioactivity. However, the FBI also considers conventional weapons (i.e. bombs) to become WMD: "A weapon crosses the WMD threshold when the consequences of its release overwhelm local responders".

In fact, so called "weapons of mass destruction" account for a small proportion of overall deaths due to weapons in general. Colombia's Vice President Gustavo Bell Lemus told the UN that deaths from bullet-firing weapons "dwarf that of all other weapons systems - and in most years greatly exceed the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

[Top]

Responses to WMD

As mentioned above, weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, are rarely used because their use is essentially an "invitation" for a WMD retaliation, which in turn could escalate into a war so destructive it could easily destroy huge segments of the world's population.

During the Cold War, this understanding became known as mutally assured destruction and was largely the reason war never broke out between the WMD-armed United States and Soviet Union.

Generally, it can be said that WMD are not very popular with much of the world. Their destructiveness is a source of unease for many, and there are always fears that they could be used by a crazy or unstable leader. There are strong movements to prevent further proliferation of WMD, as well as to eliminate nations' current WMD stocks.

Weapons of mass destruction are used to justify the Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against "rogue states" thought to be in danger of possessing or developing them. Opponents of this strategy note that the United States is the country that possesses one of the greatest arsenal of WMD on earth, and the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons in anger (at Hiroshima and Nagasaki), whereas others argue that the strategy is aimed solely at those whose intentions may be dangerous and that the current nuclear powers have all shown an unwillingness to use their WMDs outside extreme circumstances, whereas we have no similar guarantees with nations like North Korea.

[Top]

Countries suspected of having WMD

Weapons of mass destruction
Nuclear weapons
by country
Biological weapons
Chemical weapons
Radiological weapons
Reports by country
Canada
China
France
India
Iran
Iraq
Israel
North Korea
Pakistan
Russia
Taiwan
United Kingdom
United States

In the year 2000 the Federation of American Scientists (FAS), issued a list of over 30 countries they considered "possessing, pursuing or capable of acquiring nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and missile delivery systems." However it should be noted that this list omitted countries obviously capable of initiating a nuclear weapons programme should they desire (e.g. Germany and Canada). It should also be noted that being on this list did not indicate that any such programmes existed within these countries, or any political will to begin such programmes. In alphabetical order, the members of the list are:

The nations that hold the world's largest arsenals of WMD are Russia and the United States. While the U.S. holds some 10,250 nuclear weapons compared to Russia's 8500, Russia holds less than 40,000 tons of chemical weapons to the U.S.'s 24,000 tons. Neither claim to hold biological weapons.

[Top]




  View Live Article   This article is from Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License