Hi, a few weeks ago, my English teacher told us to research a topic that is controversial. I, after he told me I was not allowed to do Pirating music/the RIAA anymore, chose Weapons of mass destruction after thinking how cool "Metal Storm" was (look it up on youtube, its very interesting). Anyways, I will post what I have on my paper I am writing as food for thought.
DISCLAIMER: My paper is far from done, I need to think of one more argument in support as well as fix any grammer/spelling/strengthen argument/ending/write up the rest of my sources/give me a break :p. The poll taken was on Drexel's Campus and the ages of the pollers aged from 18 to 26. Edit: It seems short as a paper because I can only have it be between 600-1000 words.
Viva la cucaracha
Human beings have the power to cure almost every ailment known to man, however they also are able to wipe out the masses with the touch of a button. Ever since the first “weapons of mass destruction” (WoMD) were dropped on Japan, a new age of warfare ushered in. The development of the atomic and hydrogen bomb directly brought about the Cold War with Soviet Russia. Although there were no casualties this could have been considered one of the most feared war that the United States had to face. However, nowadays, without the Cuban Missile Crisis hanging over our heads, countries continue to make advancements in producing weapons capable of wiping out cities such as nuclear warheads, biological weapons, and rapid fire guns which are able to shoot 16,000 bullets in only six seconds. However, despite the negative effects, maybe there is good in the development and possession of these weapons of mass destruction.
After polling 200 of my peers asking the question “Do you think the United States should continue to develop more weapons of mass destruction such as biological and nuclear weapons?”, 86% said that we should not because we already have the technology to wipe out continents if need be. However, suppose that the United States stops developing weapons for combat. If this happens then our enemies will start to develop weapons greater than ours and eventually will be able to attack the United States. Now everyone assumes that if a country fires a WoMD, then a chain reaction will occur however, Dr. Julian Lewis, a British politician and member of parliament for New Forest East, proposed a great question;
“ If the consequence of possessing a lethal weapon is that nobody uses lethal weapons, while the consequence of not possessing a lethal weapon is that someone else uses his lethal weapons against you, which is the more moral thing to do: possess the weapons and avoid anyone being attacked, or to renounce them and lay yourself open too aggression?”
Although the weapons may not ever be used, the threat of the weapons is more important than the weapon itself. This little philosophy may have saved billions of lives.
The technology used to create these weapons has a direct relation to the technological advancements in our society. If it wasn’t for the development of nuclear weapons in the 40’s then the world would not have developed nuclear power as quickly as we might have. During this time, the government gave brilliant scientists a lot of money to harness this technology. Now, with the advent of biological warfare, scientists have developed a way to mass produce the chemicals and bio-agents in a cost effective way. This discovery has helped lower the price of modern medicine. With the continual development of chemical and biological weapons, more breakthroughs in modern science will eventually come.
Citations
Julian Lewis, “Nuclear Disarmament Versus Peace In The 20th Century”, Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies Journal Vol 151, number 2, April 2006
As of right now, I have pretty much hit a writers block. So I was wondering the thoughts of the community for Weapons of Mass Destruction? Maybe they are good for other reasons then just deterrence.
Edit #2: I searched for Weapons of mass destruction in the Search function and came up with a bunch of topics on Iraq/Bush, please lets not get on this topic, if this was already talked about sorry for resurrecting a topic.
yeah - obviously I disagree with you, John. Spam Warning!.....Amazing - even in a forum where posts don't count, there's spam. That proves that getting rid of the post-count won't help getting rid of spam! Thans for this excellent example! - Craven
I have often myself thought that the only thing keeping Soviet troops from continuing their westward march towards the Atlantic in 1945 was America's demonstration of power in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I mean, if you look at the 100 years or so prior to World War 2, countries were throwing themselves at each other every decade or so. The advent of nuclear arms meant that kind of warfare between large states was no longer an option.
I have often myself thought that the only thing keeping Soviet troops from continuing their westward march towards the Atlantic in 1945 was America's demonstration of power in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I'm pretty sure Truman would have agreed with you.
Yes, I do believe that nuclear weapons in the right hands (read: America's) are a wonderful thing. However, this does not make them good. It may make the caution employed by nations who are rational enough to understand the situation of mutually assured destruction the world faces and know that if a gun is pointed at the human race's forehead, cool logic and diplomacy prevail a good thing; but it does not make weapons of mass destruction a good thing.
The fact is there are people stupid enough to trigger these weapons, and their very existence means we had best pray that they never get their hands on them.
I think they're ok as a deterrent, but I wish we didn't need them in the first place.
The ultimate expression of this deterrent is the boomers. Nuclear subs are out there prowling the depths and every one of our potential enemies knows it. They might be under the icecaps, they might be at the other end of the earth...
Or they might be parked 50 miles off your coastline, buddy, each with enough firepower to completely 'end' your shenaningans and your people. Hard to justify attacking us when you'll have a glo-in-the-dark kingdom waiting for you tomorrow.
Only against enemies who 1) have no regard for their own survival or 2) no regard for their own people's survival do they have no effect. So far, official governments, no matter how 'radical', are still comprised of folks who at least care about #1. In this regard, it's a still a very powerful deterrent.
There are probably boomer-countermeasures being researched and improved upon by traditional and potential enemies. I pray our guys are addressing these in turn, and are making the research just visible enough to be noticed overseas, or they will cease to be effective as such.
If a sufficiently radicalized movement gains control over a government and its arsenal, God help us all. I'm far more worried about Pakistan than anything Iran can (or could) do. But, just like conventional governments the actual political leaders of these movements aren't suicidal like their foot-soldiers. They enjoy being in power and having $, just like the rest. So it might still have the intended effect, so long as we send them hi-rez satellite photos of their hideouts, in diplomatic pouches, from time to time and remind them. I hear we did that sort of thing during the Cold War.
All that said, if I could choose a world without them, I'd choose that. I'd prefer that we could all just get along instead.
.
First thing's first: though it has been repeatedly demonstrated that military advancements often have applications in the civilian world, it is a logical fallacy to claim, as you have, that those civilian adaptations rely upon the advancement of military technology to advance themselves. I can offer, for example, lasers, the Internet, and chemotherapy as three examples of high-profile, important inventions that had nothing whatsoever to do with the military until after their invention.
Continuing, your quote also espouses a logical fallacy; the presumption on having the weapons that are mentioned by that parliamentarian presumes that everyone is armed equally, that everyone is equally willing to use those weapons, and that incidences of surprise are impossible. In the real world, none of those three items is accurate; if the populous has handguns, violent criminals will seek out bulletproof vests and assault rifles; this sort of escalation has been seen repeatedly in large cities when the local police force scales up its' enforcement. The fallacies associated with the second two points (willingness to use weapons and the possibility of ambushes) ought to be obvious on their face.
Finally, the concept of mutually assured destruction was a powerful deterrent... for the Soviets. Unfortunately, in an era where most military conflict now takes place in decentralized areas, without major troop centers or lines of battle, the nuclear/biological/chemical weapon is no real use any more. Particularly in situations where the rank and file of whatever organization we're fighting is willing to cheerfully die for their cause, the threat of mass annihilation brings a response akin to "Great! Let's do this thing!"
In short, weapons of mass destruction are only, have only ever been, and only ever will be useful in large-scale, nation-versus-nation conflicts where their destructive power can accomplish the wide-scale destruction that they were designed for.
The average lion is approximately 190 cm long and 60 cm wide = 11400 cm2 = 0.00000114 km2
Now, if we take that times a trillion we get 11,400,000 km2 of lion.
Yes, I do believe that nuclear weapons in the right hands (read: America's) are a wonderful thing.
Wow, and you call me crazy.
The fact is there are people stupid or crazy or daring or just plain bored enough to trigger these weapons, and their very existence means we had best pray that they never get their hands on them.
Fixed. How can you claim to know what's motivating them to destroy the world?
Weapons of mass destruction are strong evidence that humanity will cause its own downfall. We've gotten to the point where countries now metaphorically dicksize by how many times over they could render the planet inhabitable, and as a result, there's less good ol' shootin' and stabbin'. Another means of population control gone. *sigh*
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The imagination is not a State: it is the Human existence itself." - William Blake
I think that it is inevitable that mankind will blow up the world. However I do believe that Nuclear weapons are holding certain countries from trying to aquire other countries. My question is this...whats next? Is Ronald Regan's idea of a Death Ray in space the next thing to force countries to remain peaceful?
In short, weapons of mass destruction are only, have only ever been, and only ever will be useful in large-scale, nation-versus-nation conflicts where their destructive power can accomplish the wide-scale destruction that they were designed for.
But the point is that WMDs deter from that kind of war every happening - not that they would ever be used in one.
Fixed. How can you claim to know what's motivating them to destroy the world?
I am just... hoping that they ban you soon. To claim that it is anything less than pure idiocy to use such a weapon is idiotic in itself. If anyone were to ever launch one at, say, the united states, we would find him, imprison him, and erase him and anything he holds dear to himself in the most obscene way possible.
Weapons of mass destruction are strong evidence that humanity will cause its own downfall. We've gotten to the point where countries now metaphorically dicksize by how many times over they could render the planet inhabitable, and as a result, there's less good ol' shootin' and stabbin'. Another means of population control gone. *sigh*
So... you admit that WMDs result in less bloody conflicts. Ok. The rest of anything you say will be ignored, as your statements have clearly proven that you can't possibly be anything other than a 12 year old on meth.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-THIS IS JUST A LIST- Stax, Sapphire Tri, Set Abominae, {mikeyG}, nan, glurman, JollyTheOctopuss, Sakura, Mad Mat, Johnation, Cell, Goatchunx, VerzenChaos, DarkPhoenix, EvilDuck, echelon_house
First thing's first: though it has been repeatedly demonstrated that military advancements often have applications in the civilian world, it is a logical fallacy to claim, as you have, that those civilian adaptations rely upon the advancement of military technology to advance themselves. I can offer, for example, lasers, the Internet, and chemotherapy as three examples of high-profile, important inventions that had nothing whatsoever to do with the military until after their invention.
You do know that the American Department of Defense created the original Internet, right?
Also, the first cancer chemotherapy treatment was derived from World War I-era mustard gas, which was shown to decrease white blood cell count in its victims. During the 1940s, this property was used to treat lymphomas.
The average lion is approximately 190 cm long and 60 cm wide = 11400 cm2 = 0.00000114 km2
Now, if we take that times a trillion we get 11,400,000 km2 of lion.
We've gotten to the point where countries now metaphorically dicksize by how many times over they could render the planet inhabitable, and as a result, there's less good ol' shootin' and stabbin'. Another means of population control gone. *sigh*
Aren't you the poster that said that you would go on a road warrior-esque rampage if 90% of the population kicked it? Also, have you ever been shot or stabbed? Nothing "good" about it, I assure you.
Who is this guy, anyway?
But the point is that WMDs deter from that kind of war every happening - not that they would ever be used in one.
Yes, The Bomb is probably going to sit like a forgotten turnip under the porch and collect dust...until we (or another country with The Bomb) have a hard-on to use it against someone without nuclear capabilities.
I would agree with you, but add this; after Japan, we've been kept relatively safe, not because WMD's provide the possibility of mutually assured destruction, but because we've actually used The Bomb once (twice, in fact, as if that weren't enough), and it hasn't been so long ago that other countries don't think we'll do it again. I don't really like the current situation, but it's pretty much a fact of life.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to High~Light Studios for the awesome sig. Go check'em out!
Yeah, nukes are possibly the best step towards world peace for the past several hundred years. Chemical weapons, realistically, are just weaker nukes. Biological weapons, however, are scary as hell. Here's why
As has been stated before, no logical person is going to use a nuke, and most illogical people won't either. They understand that if they do, they will die, and most people have a very strong desire to live (main reason we shouldn't be afraid of North Korea having nukes, as Kim-Jong-Il is greedy, and that shows he at least cares about himself enough to not want to die). The only people who would use a WMD don't have enough sway or resources to gather a world demolishing aresenal of them (typically terroist and guerilla groups who value their cause over their lives and the lives of the majority). With a nuke or chemical weapon, the losses are contained. Imagine the worst case scenario: someone nukes Tokyo or NYC. 20-30 million die, awkward, world lives on. There's a large economic loss, but its definitely recoverable.
Biological weapons, however, are self perpetuating and can cause limitless casualties. Most are controllable, but some aren't, and as they operate on DNA they can mutate. While the average biological weapon isn't going to cause a pandemic, the opportunity for the nightmare scenario exists where an airborne hemmoragic fever or the 1918 flu gets loose and millions, possibly billions, die. No major entity can benefit from their use as the potential to kill your own citizens exists.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Albus Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone
To the well organized mind, death is but the next great adventure.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
DISCLAIMER: My paper is far from done, I need to think of one more argument in support as well as fix any grammer/spelling/strengthen argument/ending/write up the rest of my sources/give me a break :p. The poll taken was on Drexel's Campus and the ages of the pollers aged from 18 to 26. Edit: It seems short as a paper because I can only have it be between 600-1000 words.
Viva la cucaracha
Human beings have the power to cure almost every ailment known to man, however they also are able to wipe out the masses with the touch of a button. Ever since the first “weapons of mass destruction” (WoMD) were dropped on Japan, a new age of warfare ushered in. The development of the atomic and hydrogen bomb directly brought about the Cold War with Soviet Russia. Although there were no casualties this could have been considered one of the most feared war that the United States had to face. However, nowadays, without the Cuban Missile Crisis hanging over our heads, countries continue to make advancements in producing weapons capable of wiping out cities such as nuclear warheads, biological weapons, and rapid fire guns which are able to shoot 16,000 bullets in only six seconds. However, despite the negative effects, maybe there is good in the development and possession of these weapons of mass destruction.
After polling 200 of my peers asking the question “Do you think the United States should continue to develop more weapons of mass destruction such as biological and nuclear weapons?”, 86% said that we should not because we already have the technology to wipe out continents if need be. However, suppose that the United States stops developing weapons for combat. If this happens then our enemies will start to develop weapons greater than ours and eventually will be able to attack the United States. Now everyone assumes that if a country fires a WoMD, then a chain reaction will occur however, Dr. Julian Lewis, a British politician and member of parliament for New Forest East, proposed a great question;
“ If the consequence of possessing a lethal weapon is that nobody uses lethal weapons, while the consequence of not possessing a lethal weapon is that someone else uses his lethal weapons against you, which is the more moral thing to do: possess the weapons and avoid anyone being attacked, or to renounce them and lay yourself open too aggression?”
Although the weapons may not ever be used, the threat of the weapons is more important than the weapon itself. This little philosophy may have saved billions of lives.
The technology used to create these weapons has a direct relation to the technological advancements in our society. If it wasn’t for the development of nuclear weapons in the 40’s then the world would not have developed nuclear power as quickly as we might have. During this time, the government gave brilliant scientists a lot of money to harness this technology. Now, with the advent of biological warfare, scientists have developed a way to mass produce the chemicals and bio-agents in a cost effective way. This discovery has helped lower the price of modern medicine. With the continual development of chemical and biological weapons, more breakthroughs in modern science will eventually come.
Citations
Julian Lewis, “Nuclear Disarmament Versus Peace In The 20th Century”, Royal United Services Institute for Defense and Security Studies Journal Vol 151, number 2, April 2006
As of right now, I have pretty much hit a writers block. So I was wondering the thoughts of the community for Weapons of Mass Destruction? Maybe they are good for other reasons then just deterrence.
Edit #2: I searched for Weapons of mass destruction in the Search function and came up with a bunch of topics on Iraq/Bush, please lets not get on this topic, if this was already talked about sorry for resurrecting a topic.
I mean, if you look at the 100 years or so prior to World War 2, countries were throwing themselves at each other every decade or so. The advent of nuclear arms meant that kind of warfare between large states was no longer an option.
I'm pretty sure Truman would have agreed with you.
Yes, I do believe that nuclear weapons in the right hands (read: America's) are a wonderful thing. However, this does not make them good. It may make the caution employed by nations who are rational enough to understand the situation of mutually assured destruction the world faces and know that if a gun is pointed at the human race's forehead, cool logic and diplomacy prevail a good thing; but it does not make weapons of mass destruction a good thing.
The fact is there are people stupid enough to trigger these weapons, and their very existence means we had best pray that they never get their hands on them.
The ultimate expression of this deterrent is the boomers. Nuclear subs are out there prowling the depths and every one of our potential enemies knows it. They might be under the icecaps, they might be at the other end of the earth...
Or they might be parked 50 miles off your coastline, buddy, each with enough firepower to completely 'end' your shenaningans and your people. Hard to justify attacking us when you'll have a glo-in-the-dark kingdom waiting for you tomorrow.
Only against enemies who 1) have no regard for their own survival or 2) no regard for their own people's survival do they have no effect. So far, official governments, no matter how 'radical', are still comprised of folks who at least care about #1. In this regard, it's a still a very powerful deterrent.
There are probably boomer-countermeasures being researched and improved upon by traditional and potential enemies. I pray our guys are addressing these in turn, and are making the research just visible enough to be noticed overseas, or they will cease to be effective as such.
If a sufficiently radicalized movement gains control over a government and its arsenal, God help us all. I'm far more worried about Pakistan than anything Iran can (or could) do. But, just like conventional governments the actual political leaders of these movements aren't suicidal like their foot-soldiers. They enjoy being in power and having $, just like the rest. So it might still have the intended effect, so long as we send them hi-rez satellite photos of their hideouts, in diplomatic pouches, from time to time and remind them. I hear we did that sort of thing during the Cold War.
All that said, if I could choose a world without them, I'd choose that. I'd prefer that we could all just get along instead.
.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
First thing's first: though it has been repeatedly demonstrated that military advancements often have applications in the civilian world, it is a logical fallacy to claim, as you have, that those civilian adaptations rely upon the advancement of military technology to advance themselves. I can offer, for example, lasers, the Internet, and chemotherapy as three examples of high-profile, important inventions that had nothing whatsoever to do with the military until after their invention.
Continuing, your quote also espouses a logical fallacy; the presumption on having the weapons that are mentioned by that parliamentarian presumes that everyone is armed equally, that everyone is equally willing to use those weapons, and that incidences of surprise are impossible. In the real world, none of those three items is accurate; if the populous has handguns, violent criminals will seek out bulletproof vests and assault rifles; this sort of escalation has been seen repeatedly in large cities when the local police force scales up its' enforcement. The fallacies associated with the second two points (willingness to use weapons and the possibility of ambushes) ought to be obvious on their face.
Finally, the concept of mutually assured destruction was a powerful deterrent... for the Soviets. Unfortunately, in an era where most military conflict now takes place in decentralized areas, without major troop centers or lines of battle, the nuclear/biological/chemical weapon is no real use any more. Particularly in situations where the rank and file of whatever organization we're fighting is willing to cheerfully die for their cause, the threat of mass annihilation brings a response akin to "Great! Let's do this thing!"
In short, weapons of mass destruction are only, have only ever been, and only ever will be useful in large-scale, nation-versus-nation conflicts where their destructive power can accomplish the wide-scale destruction that they were designed for.
Magnificent Quote of the day:
Wow, and you call me crazy.
Fixed. How can you claim to know what's motivating them to destroy the world?
Weapons of mass destruction are strong evidence that humanity will cause its own downfall. We've gotten to the point where countries now metaphorically dicksize by how many times over they could render the planet inhabitable, and as a result, there's less good ol' shootin' and stabbin'. Another means of population control gone. *sigh*
"Stoned players can't attack, block, or play spells or abilities."
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
"In high school, I went into the locker room, and there were a bunch of jocks dicksizing."
Hey, you! Yeah, you behind the computer screen! You're unconstitutional.
America == Velociraptor
Play IRC mafia. (/join #mafia)
[EDH] Ob Nixilis the Fallen
But the point is that WMDs deter from that kind of war every happening - not that they would ever be used in one.
I am just... hoping that they ban you soon. To claim that it is anything less than pure idiocy to use such a weapon is idiotic in itself. If anyone were to ever launch one at, say, the united states, we would find him, imprison him, and erase him and anything he holds dear to himself in the most obscene way possible.
So... you admit that WMDs result in less bloody conflicts. Ok. The rest of anything you say will be ignored, as your statements have clearly proven that you can't possibly be anything other than a 12 year old on meth.
You do know that the American Department of Defense created the original Internet, right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPAnet
Also, the first cancer chemotherapy treatment was derived from World War I-era mustard gas, which was shown to decrease white blood cell count in its victims. During the 1940s, this property was used to treat lymphomas.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotherapy
So you're 1 for 3 on your examples.
Consider me hoist by my own petard!
Magnificent Quote of the day:
Aren't you the poster that said that you would go on a road warrior-esque rampage if 90% of the population kicked it? Also, have you ever been shot or stabbed? Nothing "good" about it, I assure you.
Who is this guy, anyway?
Yes, The Bomb is probably going to sit like a forgotten turnip under the porch and collect dust...until we (or another country with The Bomb) have a hard-on to use it against someone without nuclear capabilities.
I would agree with you, but add this; after Japan, we've been kept relatively safe, not because WMD's provide the possibility of mutually assured destruction, but because we've actually used The Bomb once (twice, in fact, as if that weren't enough), and it hasn't been so long ago that other countries don't think we'll do it again. I don't really like the current situation, but it's pretty much a fact of life.
Thanks to High~Light Studios for the awesome sig. Go check'em out!
As has been stated before, no logical person is going to use a nuke, and most illogical people won't either. They understand that if they do, they will die, and most people have a very strong desire to live (main reason we shouldn't be afraid of North Korea having nukes, as Kim-Jong-Il is greedy, and that shows he at least cares about himself enough to not want to die). The only people who would use a WMD don't have enough sway or resources to gather a world demolishing aresenal of them (typically terroist and guerilla groups who value their cause over their lives and the lives of the majority). With a nuke or chemical weapon, the losses are contained. Imagine the worst case scenario: someone nukes Tokyo or NYC. 20-30 million die, awkward, world lives on. There's a large economic loss, but its definitely recoverable.
Biological weapons, however, are self perpetuating and can cause limitless casualties. Most are controllable, but some aren't, and as they operate on DNA they can mutate. While the average biological weapon isn't going to cause a pandemic, the opportunity for the nightmare scenario exists where an airborne hemmoragic fever or the 1918 flu gets loose and millions, possibly billions, die. No major entity can benefit from their use as the potential to kill your own citizens exists.