0
Should the United Nations regulate weapons of mass destruction?
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Maybe they should, but they couldn't.
Wiki User
∙ 13y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
To what extent should nations develop weapons of mass destruction?
In actuallity they should not, but some will so others have to as a deterent.
Why did the Bush administration believe Iraq was constructing and stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction and should therefore be invaded?
Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, had defied attempts by UN weapons inspectors to inspect for WMD.Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, had defied attempts by UN weapons inspectors to inspectors for WMD
Why illegal weapons should be banned?
Illegal weapons are by definition already banned.
Should the national legislature have the power to regulate commerce and the slave trade?
yes
Should nuclear weapons be totally banned?
Answer 1This is an extremely difficult question to answer, from any number of positions (practical, political, moral, military, and even philosophical).To determine a plausible framework for discussing this question, we first must look at what has come before: that is, when looking at whether to ban nukes, we should see what other weapons are banned, and why, then try to see if nuclear weapons have some analogous reasoning applicable to them.The Hague Conventions, several of the Geneva Conventions, Ottawa Treaty (Landmines), and Convention on Cluster Bombs have generally banned several types of weapons right now (specifically, we're talking about weapons whose USE has been banned): explosive bullets, chemical weapons, biological weapons, toxin weapons, weapons causing fragments no detectable by X-Rays, blinding lasers, certain incendiary weapons, "stupid" anti-personnel landmines, and small-scale cluster weapons.Looking at what we have banned so far, there seems to be several characteristics which lead to a weapon's banning. All of the weapons above have at least one of the following characteristics (and, many have more than one):Infliction of excessively painful wounds, beyond that necessary for incapacitation.The military utility is significantly less than the threat to nearby civiliansTheir effect is to cause permanent, rather than temporary, injury.Use causes indiscriminate damage, death, or injury not reasonably controllable or targetable by the weapon's userInjury to civilian populations is likely to occur long after their military useIn addition, and unstated, but nonetheless very important aspect of banning a weapon is that other more "humane" weapons are available to perform a similar (though not identical) function. For example: regular solid bullets instead of explosive ones, mass bombing or artillery instead of chemical or biological weapons, and "smart" (e.g. time deactivated, or command-detonated only) landmines rather than "stupid" ones. That is, humanity seems to be OK with banning weapons which are generally not unique in their utility.Looking at the above criteria, we can see that nuclear weapons certainly have the following characteristics which are similar to certain banned weapons:Indiscriminate effects (inability of the user to reasonably restrict effects to military targets when civilian ones are in the vicinity) - compare to chemical or toxin weaponsAfter effects of the nuke's use linger for a substantial time and are difficult to neutralize - compare to biological weapons or landminesInjuries are commonly permanent in nature, and many are disfiguring or severely painful - compare to incendiary or chemical weaponsHowever, the first case above also applies to very-large-scale conventional weapons, and is more a matter of size than anything else (which, nonetheless, is important to consider). The second case is also signficantly less important than originally thought - residual radiation left by nuclear weapons is very short-term, and what does remain as long-term radiation has been shown to be much less harmful than expected (indeed, many experts now discount any real long-term impact of radiation in the immediate vicinity). However, fallout is still a huge problem, so while long-term effects nearby the nuclear explosion are unlikely to be noticeable around the detonation zone, fallout contamination can very likely impact a huge area outside the target zone.Overall, there does seem to be a real good argument for the banning of nuclear weapons, based on historical precedents. However, there is a major, practical reason they aren't right now: they are currently the weapon of last resort, one which no other weapon can take the place of.That is, nuclear weapons provide a failsafe, and a check on those acting in bad faith with respect to abiding by weapons ban. Should nuclear weapons themselves be banned, there will be very significant pressure on nations to secretly "cheat" and eventually to use banned weapons, particularly other weapons of mass destruction. To put it more clearly, if nuclear weapons are banned, then there is a very big advantage to be had by one nation into secretly creating chemical, biological, toxin, or even nuclear weapons, and then use them, as the military advantage of being the ONLY user of such a weapon far outweighs any sanction other nations may impose.Until some mechanism can be developed to remove the cheating incentive, the utility of nuclear weapons as a weapon of last resort will remain, and indeed, be sorely needed.Sadly, for now, I'd say that nuclear weapons cannot be banned.Answer 2All weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological, ... etc) should be banned and eliminated completely. All faiths and religions ban mass destruction weapons. How do you allow a military force to use a weapon of mass destruction that kills children, women, old people, and animals that have no choice and never participated in a war? How do you allow use of weapons of mass destruction that destroys in moments hundreds and thousands of homes, plants, factories, and institutions? There is no logic; in our civilized world; in using weapons of mass destruction in any war.Per human rights and peace arguments, all weapons of mass destruction including nuclear weapons should be banned and eliminated.
To what extent should nations develop weapons of mass destruction?
In actuallity they should not, but some will so others have to as a deterent.
What does mass destruction mean?
If you've heard the term "weapons of mass destruction" you should know what "mass destruction" means. "Mass destruction" means a high area of damage.
Should nations have the freedom to develop nuclear weapons?
Any answer to this question would be pure opinion, but I sincerely believe that nations should not have the freedom to develop nuclear weapons. The more nations that have them, the more likely it becomes that they will be used.
Should other nations be concerned about India and Pakistan testing nuclear weapons?
Yes hence the word NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Why did a little conflict in the Balkans to explode into a world war?
This is the policy of the country (word).Old weapons should be used because the destruction of such weapons is costly.
Why should a country have nuclear weapons?
That is a very, very good question. Their only use is mass destruction, and when I say mass destruction, I mean life as we know it being severely altered.
Should the US use nuclear weapons as part of its military defense?
well for the sake of humanity hopefully not, but if confronted with nuclear destruction from another country they should retaliate.
Who should regulate childcare centers?
The state should regulate centers.
Why should other nations handle the issue of Iran's nuclear weapons instead of the UN?
There is no reason to prioritize negotiations between nations through the UN or without using the auspices of the UN. The negotiation is between nations anyway.
Who banned using chemical weapons?
See website: Geneva Protocol; list of members and reservations (should be over 100 nations).
Why did the Bush administration believe Iraq was constructing and stockpiling Weapons of Mass Destruction and should therefore be invaded?
Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, had defied attempts by UN weapons inspectors to inspect for WMD.Iraq's leader, Saddam Hussein, had defied attempts by UN weapons inspectors to inspectors for WMD
What is a bomb that you should really hate?
You should probably hate all bombs, since they can kill you and other people.answ2. But cluster weapons which disperse a number of individual explosive bomblets are among the worst.Similarly with land mines for like cluster weapons they remain active for years and kill many civilians years later.Neither of these weapons are still used by civilized nations.
