All of these seem to happen in a threatening silence: a gilded mushroom shaped cloud rises from the far away horizon, almost simultaneously all electronic devices malfunction, followed by an omnipotent shockwave originating from the center of the mushroom, destroying everything in its path. The blast releasing too much heat melts everything. The cloud swells rapidly and soon covered the sky. What follows is dark and quiet, what follows is the entire human civilization gone with wind?. This tragedy has happened before, so the government needs to do everything to prevent it from happening again. This is the only right policy for the United States of America under all the circumstances, because we do not have any other choices: if it happens again in the future, it will be the Armageddon of the world, as referred to the Bible. But ironically the United States? Weapons of mass destruction Policy is just any thing but does everything to prevent it (1).
As the only superpower in the world, it no longer fears the threat of foreign enemies like USSR that have troubled it in the past century. ?What was true during the cold war era no longer applies, and what we face today is a new reality that is every bit as challenging and worrisome as that which we faced during the cold war. (2)? Keeping the thousands of nuclear warheads and large amount of bio-chemical weapons is a remnant from the cold war, and they will cause lots of problems. We have to protect the excessively large number of nuclear warheads from thefts, nuclear contamination and some crazy individuals ?accidentally? pushing the nuclear buttons. It is not a paradox for the American government to keep from destroying these weapons of mass destruction, but it is because of the convoluted bipartisan democracy system. The United State weapon of mass destruction policy presently, is not as simple a structure as the people usually think it to be. It fully depends on the considerations of those congressmen who were supported by the gigantic corporation. Their decisions have somewhat represented their own selfish interests. For example: a weapon company is more likely to give a congressman the financial support, and expect to get some pro-weapon development policies in return; an electric company will give support to a congress man who proclaims that America is under an emergency of lacking electricity.
... Unlike the millions of dollars required to develop and design nuclear weapons, biological weapons are relatively inexpensive to develop and use. Developing an ... a threat for the future. During the Gulf War, for example, biological weapons developed by Iraq posed a threat and they ... view, I believe that surviving a biological war is more likely than surviving a nuclear war, but I find the idea of ...
Based on this, American weapons of mass destruction policy would be better designed to focus on the root of the problem. By giving those weapon companies a good environment to use their own sophisticated nuclear technology on the decreasing nuclear warheads and encourage them to use their nuclear material on civil enterprises, so that we can more easily reduce this cold war- sequel. First, destroying weapons of mass destruction is a hugely expensive process. It may actually cost our government more money in destroying the nuclear warheads than building them; U.S. and Russia officially report some of their warheads lack of regulates maintenance. President Bush said we can maintain effective nuclear supremacy with 1700-2200 operational nuclear warheads, but current U.S. inventory has 5000 operational nuclear warheads (2).
So it is a huge industrial business waiting for those Weapons Companies and it provides a bridge for them to transfer themselves to civil companies. Second, decreasing the weapons of mass destruction demands the companies who have the highest technology and security; this only can be provided by those big weapon companies. Third, we do not want to lose those excellent scientists who are authorities in this field. We can?t imagine what will happen if organized terrorists recruited them. September 11th, 2001, the terrorism attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, showed us that the terrorists are the biggest problem that threatens US and the international security (3).
... of how it was created through the influence of nuclear/ weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Firstly, it will analyse the changing ... was defined as; extreme scale immediate mass destruction. The strategic studies of the international relation have drastically changed in the ... of a Bomb’ (1997). Security model of ‘nuclear weapons and international threat’ is the first model Sagon introduces. According ...
The terrorists don?t have the technology to build the nuclear weapon right now, but there is a possibility that they will steal it from the US or USSR?s power magazine. The Anthrax attack that followed caused 5 deaths of innocent people and has a psychological effect to others that is very serious. It is a warning sign of a possible bio-attack in future (4).
So America, seeking long-term solutions to terrorism, is in emergency. As the largest power in the world, America should be the leader of the international role of banning weapons of mass destruction. And it has the responsibility for providing the other countries like Russia the scientists they need for decreasing weapon of mass destruction. When it sends scientists, it can also send the verification regiment to make sure things go well. Form this, America can show the other country the sincerity, and every country will follow. Weapon of Mass destruction is a double-blade knife; it kills your enemies, but also destroys the environment, killing yourself in a long term effect. The difference is the direct victims are killed in a second, and the ones who used it will be killed much more slowly and painfully by its durable radiation pollution caused leukemia and other forms of cancer(5).
Some evidence shows that the world cancer and mutation patients portion in the whole population from the have a large scale of increase during the past 50 years which the entire have unrestrained nuclear explosion test contributed one of the major factors. Americans need to fully support United Nation?s other members signing the international weapons of mass destruction treaties, like the Final Declaration of 1999 which was signed by 154 nations. As a means to achieving nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, the Final Declaration prohibits the nuclear testing (6).
These kinds of treaties are very positive, and its main point is to building up a mutual trust mechanism which can only be based on faith. That means neither double standards for any countries and nor any clandestine nuclear weapon tests. Most importantly, the American government needs to help the United Nations build powerful and totally independent verification regiment. It is not be subordinate to any other organizations, and it has all necessary privilege rights. For example, it has the right to selective examination at any part of the world, with no place exempted. It will be supported by UN troops. This verification regiment enforces the treaties, making sure they achieve their goal. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) on 11-13 November 2001 was a good start; its objective were processing of nuclear disarmament; it makes the progress improvement more impressive because it farther more it proved a prototype of Verification Regime and an International Monitoring System(7).
... prone rather than peaceful. A nuclear weapon is defined as “a weapon of mass destruction whose power derives from nuclear reaction”. Nuclear weapons themselves represent death and great ... with every country possessing nuclear weapons the world would be far more war prone. I think the belief that possession of nuclear weapons by every ...
In the future, America needs to try its best to support the UN to gradually develop an international super government. There should be 3 independent branches included in the international government: Legislative, Executive and Judicial. Legislative branch provides the laws of reduce mass destructive weapons and weapon non-proliferation. The Executive branch designs to execute the countries which violate the laws design by Legislative. And the Judicial branch designs to examine if the countries are violate the laws. All of these are supported by strong UN troops. Each branch is made up by the delegates from around the world, so it can make fair decisions on its cases. This idea is similar to the US government right now, except US government represents the people of United States and the international government represents 200 countries around the world. What is the weapon of mass destruction for? ?They grew out of history, yet they threaten to end history. They were made by men, yet they threaten to annihilate man. (5)? The topic of 2002 Swackhamer Peace Essay Contest makes the tragedy of 9/11 come up in my thoughts again and again: no one wants to wake up in the morning, watching news on TV that the reporters say some terrorists have dropped the nuke that wipe out an entire city; and also we do not want to hear the thousands of people became the victims of weapon of mass destruction.
... could destroy civilization and end all life on Earth. Nuclear weapons are ... threat that nuclear weapons pose to humanity and all life. These are not ordinary weapons, but instruments of mass annihilation that ... sides were gaining more ability to deliver nuclear weapons effectively. The official nuclear policy of the United States was one ...
Its existence itself is just the Sword of Damocles dangling above all the peaceful lives so loved by us. And most importantly, the sword hangs by only one fragile string; it would be a nightmare if somebody blows a wind and the string broken. Its psychological effects already have deepened our hearts, it causes us to ask repeatedly: how long will it hold? Nothing can prevent anyone from saying that all the nuclear warheads owned by US and USSR can kill the entire human population dozens of times, unless we totally clear them. Some ancient philosophers have prophesied that the human world is so prodigious that it is unlikely to be destroyed by the outside forces; the only power that can make it extinct is itself. Is it true? Is it possible? Certainly it is. But whether that is what going to happen, it?ll depend on our government?s future policies and their decisions. We are waiting?.
(1)Jennifer Scarlott: ?The United States Contributes to Nuclear Proliferation? Nuclear Proliferation Opposing Viewpoint San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press (2) Michael T. Klare: ?U.S. Supremacies and Weapons of Mass Destruction in the 21st Century? New York 2002 http://www.fpif.org/presentations/wmd01/klare.html (3) CNN. ?Nuclear attack: Now anything seems possible? 2001 http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/08/rec.nuclear.attack/index.html(4) CNN. ?Anthrax Scare in St. Louis? 2002http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/06/anthrax.stlouis/index.html?related(5) Jonathan Schell: The Fate of Earth, 44-45, 3. Alfred A. Knopf ? New York 1982 (6) UN ?Draft Final Declaration? Nov. 2001http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/ctbt/article_iv/draftE.pdf(7)UN ?Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty? Sept. 2001http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/ctbt/article_iv/ptsbackground.htm