Weapons of Mass Destruction

From dKosopedia

(Redirected from WMDs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) or "WMDs" (plural), refers to chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (collectively), and, more specifically, to "those weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to create large numbers of casualties (more than 1000 people) during a single event or incident." This definition may include the use of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, high-yield explosives, high-energy weapons, or those improvised weapons such as "dirty (nuclear) bombs" that can realistically be expected to cause mass casualties or mass effects.

Some experts have noted that "destruction" is not necessarily meant to be taken literally. "Weapons of Mass Disruption" might be a more accurate term, particularly for non-nuclear weapons, since the effects of anticipated damage (such as a panicked mass evacuation) could be extremely damaging to our nation even when such weapons themselves produce little real damage.

Fuel-air bombs developed by the U.S. military have far more destructive and killing power than almost any other existing non-nuclear weapon. However, these weapons would leave behind no radioactive contamination. In contrast, even if the actual danger created by a dirty bomb or the release of a biological agent was relatively small, fear of contamination and subsequent attempts to flee could have severe effects.

While the United States and Russia possess the largest stockpiles of nuclear weapons in the world and several other nations have tested nuclear weapons — more than twenty countries are suspected of possessing or developing chemical weapons, and about a dozen are suspected of possessing or developing biological weapons. Other nations, such as Iraq, that once had active nuclear and/or biological weapons programs have since terminated those programs.

Several considerations weigh heavily both to encourage certain nations to seek possession of weapons of mass destruction, and also on certain nations to forego possession. Some political entities such as Taiwan have reason to fear military adventures by nearby nations yet shrink from (1) the likelihood that the weapons would be used against members of their own communities and even members of their own families and (2) the "lightning rod effect" of possessing those weapons under conditions of intense international tensions. In general, when one nation feels itself faced by a sea of adversaries (e.g., Israel and North Korea), then nuclear weapons present themselves as the fatal pill that would have to be consumed by an enemy intent on destroying them. These nations must take into consideration the likelihood that they would face oblivion at the hands of their massed enemies.

Besides the long-term deadlock situations posed by nations such as North Korea and Israel, there are the much more dangerous situations in which two powers of approximately equal capabilities face off under conditions of high tensions--and both sides contemplate the dual teeter-totters of first strike capability and mutually assured destruction. In the past, the United States and the Soviet Union were sometimes within minutes of a civilization-destroying conflict due to radar data that appeared to indicate a massed attack by the other side. Currently, India and Pakistan face much the same hair-trigger threat.

In cases where no nations seem to present an overwhelming threat, nations with the cability or near capability to produce atomic weapons have drawn back from the precipice voluntarily. Such nations include Libya and South Africa.

In cases where the weapons of mass destruction would, if used, be traced back to the nation deploying them, the threat of retaliation in kind has forced leaders to endure a cold analysis of what would transpire if they were to launch a first strike against another powerful nation. Using a massive enough attack to give reasonable assurance of knocking out retaliatory capability would, in the case of a powerful state such as the Soviet Union, produce a nuclear winter, not to mention creating levels of radioactive fall-out that would damage one's own nation and all of the people of the world. Added to those destructive potentials would be the very real possibility that one's opponent would have sufficient nuclear weapons aboard atomic submarines or in other virtually invulnerable places to wreak damage on one's own major cities.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Union came an increased possibility that some existing weapons and/or weapons material would make its way into the hands of non-state actors, multi-national terrorist groups that might be so well dispersed that there could be no effective nuclear counterattack against them. A major factor staying the hands of traditional possessors of nuclear weapons would not be in operation in such cases.

With the proliferation of nuclear technology, both for legitimate reasons such as power production and for political and/or ideological reasons such as in the case of the Pakistani aid to certain nations desiring nuclear weapons, an additional possible source of weapons for terrorist groups has opened up.

Instability in leadership, both as regards the ego strenghs of relevant world leaders, and as regards the s