WMDs

Scott Weber, Paul Dennis, MACIN


 * Assertion: The United Nations and the UN Security Council should closely monitor the use of nuclear weapons and power.**


 * **__Reasoning__**: WMDs can be useful if used for a peaceful means, such as energy, and should not be completely abolished.
 * Evidence: Nuclear power can also be used to develop WMDs, but nuclear power could be an efficient energy. Nuclear energy currently accounts for about 15% of the world's energy.


 * **__Reasoning__**: Even though they are useful, not everybody can be trusted with them, and those that can be trusted with them shouldn't be able to launch them whenever they feel like it.
 * Evidence: Countries like Iran and North Korea with dictatorial, corrupt, or unstable governments are not fit to handle WMDs.


 * __**Reasoning**__: WMDs are sometimes needed to bring quick ends to otherwise bloody and costly conflicts.
 * Evidence: In World War II the United States used nuclear bombs to force Japan to surrender. If the US had launched an invasion of Japan, it would've cost the lives of countless Americans and Japanese. This was a quicker and more efficient way to bring a quick end to the war

Map of Nuclear powers of the world.  NPT Nuclear Weapon States (China, France, Russia, UK, US)  Non-NPT Nuclear Weapon States (India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan)  States accused of having nuclear weapons programs (Iran, Syria)  NATO weapons sharing weapons recipients  States formerly possessing nuclear weapons
 * A **weapon of mass destruction** (**WMD**) is a [|weapon] that can kill large numbers of humans and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the [|biosphere] in general.
 * WMD'S were used to end the pacific theater of WWII with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

WMD—which includes biological, chemical, and radiological agents; nuclear devices; and conventional explosives above a certain size.

**The current arms-control debate** **The argument for arms control.** Today, many nations have the ability to make //weapons of mass destruction//—that is, chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. The existence of such weapons has helped encourage support for arms control. People who favor arms control use the following arguments: The overwhelming power of modern weapons exceeds any reasonable purpose. Today, one submarine can carry missiles and nuclear warheads that contain more destructive power than all the weapons used during World War II (1939-1945). The use of all existing nuclear warheads in an attack would almost certainly destroy the countries attacked. Similarly, the use of chemical or biological weapons against troops or civilian populations would cause large numbers of deaths. The threat to use such weapons against a country might itself cause a war. A threatened country might question its ability to survive an attack. As a result, it might strike first if it feared that it was about to be attacked. Arms control is intended to reduce such fears. Arms control reduces the need for countries to acquire nuclear weapons or increase their supply of other weapons. Arms control thus eases world tension and limits other conditions that might lead to nuclear war.
 * [|Print "The argument for arms control" subsection]**

 Armed forces and weapons by themselves do not cause international disputes or tension. They merely reflect political, economic, and other disputes, which must be settled before nations can agree on arms control. Arms-control agreements between an open, free society and a secret, authoritarian society are risky. The authoritarian nation often will not permit adequate inspection to assure that it is keeping its part of the agreement. Arms control may damage a nation's military defense. Agreements may call for the destruction of some needed weapons and may also prevent the replacement or improvement of other necessary weapons systems.
 * The argument against arms control.** Some nations want to build or acquire sophisticated weapons because they regard them as a symbol of technological achievement, prestige, and modernness. Also, many people feel more secure if their country is militarily strong. Opponents of arms control use the following arguments:

[|Nuclear Montage]

[|End of World Video]

[|Nuclear Death simulation]









































Bibliography

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []