The term “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD) has been made popular ever since the Cold War, with plenty of examples to show. By convention, although open to controversy, it has been understood that WMD includes not only nuclear weapons- by far the superior form of WMD- but also biological and chemical weapons. If this definition of WMD stands, then this ethical debate would have dated back to the early nineteenth century, way before World War 1. Despite its destructive nature, attention to it as a weapon had been surprisingly sparse, that is until recently. Hence, what is the entire ethical dilemma behind the usage of such weapons, and will their usage ever be justified?
The basis of this ethical dilemma stems from the very fact that WMDs are not conventional bombs; they are in fact a combination of firebombs, gas bombs etc. Furthermore, these weapons are not targeted strictly at military institutes; because of their damage radius it makes it possible to wipe off an entire island from the world map with just one WMD. This then begs the question: should WMD be banned completely from the Earth? To avoid the narrow-minded classic response of “yes it's veh bad it needs to be removed”, we have traced the development of such weapons to its roots and its original purpose. Since the end of WW2, the US developed project Manhattan in an arms race against the Nazis; the winner would get to use the weapon first and destroy the other side. Nuclear weapon of this scale has never been built, and the first news of it sent shockwaves among the human population. Many feared for their lives, while others rejoiced in the devastation it could bring. It then seemed as if the world could not live without anymore. The Americans and the Russians soon realised its power and tried to develop as many of them as possible, trying to keep each other at bay. This arms race soon spread to other countries: China, France, India, Israel, N. Korea Pakistan, Russia, UK and the US possess nuclear weapons today, with Israel maintaining nuclear neutrality even though reports show otherwise. With over 15,000 nuclear warheads in the world, only 2 have have ever been used, and the incident have been as old as our parents if not older. What then makes it so important that so many have to be produced, only to be kept in the factories?
In this paper, we strongly feel that such weapons should be outlawed in every way possible, but is that practical? Almost every large nation has nuclear warheads, all claiming to protect themselves against aggression. Using the ethical theory which argues for the Respect for Autonomy, it makes it acceptable for countries like France and the United Kingdom to develop such weapons. These countries have experienced so many aggressive invasions in the past, and hence it would make it acceptable for them to have such weapons in their possession to deter future aggression. However, such strong weapons are not necessarily needed for a country to defend itself; there should be limits to such autonomy as they prove destructive to the nations around them. They not only possess the power to defend themselves, but also the power to adversely affect the countries around them. Should France fall to the far-right, the launch codes may be retrieved and left on the desk of the leader. This “right to self-defence” will as such look like a plan to mask their plan to world domination. While it is true that the aggressors may possess such weapons, there are in fact enough humans on the planet to try and stop the usage of the weapons; the Geneva Protocol, Humanitarian Organisations Worldwide. There should never be a case where a country needs and actively research nuclear weapons to counter nuclear weapons. If such a theory and line of reasoning be adopted (which unfortunately has been used, more will be discussed later), then everyone will have point warheads at each other in the name of self-defense.
However, the sad truth is that all those countries which possess said weapons all have done it in defense. Nothing will change the fact that North Korea is reluctant to give up their nuclear arsenal, nothing will stop Iran from continuing its nuclear programme and no effort large `enough will stop the US from ever giving up its programme. Why then are all these countries so reluctant to give up the launch codes, destroy the warheads and make peace? It is unfortunately the same reason in which countries fought in WW2, why countries have armies despite almost all having friendly relations with each other. It is simply not about using these weapons anymore- rather its about the entire concept of displaying weapons to deter aggression. With the entry of a new century, many countries have been more “civilised” and do not see the need to annex a country to get resources or benefits from them; trade agreements and treaties can be signed and usually in all cases both parties will adhere to it due to the fact that it benefits both. Hence these weapons are a form of a new war strategy known as Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). This means that say country A decides to launch it's nukes at country B, B will also fire is nukes against A and both sides will be destroyed in the process. This creates no incentive at all as to why a nation would want to do so. Assuming that a country would wish to fire it's warheads in the name of a greater good, the question then comes- is it then right to fire these nukes for a possibly greater good?
Let us take Japan during WW2 as a possible case study given that not many nukes have been deployed around the world as of late. The rationale behind the launching of the 2 atom bombs were because the US did not want a land invasion into Japan as it will cost too many lives and take up too much time. Will this then justify the 300,000 plus the aftermath of the radiation deaths then? The protagonist and antagonist is very hard to pinpoint here; on one hand Japan has committed atrocities in it's vessel states in South-east Asia and hence should be stopped at all cost. On the other hand the bombs were targeted at civilisation, innocent men and women who have done absolutely nothing wrong and are just going about their daily lives. Will it then be fair to them? In truth, the usage of the bomb is very controversial given that Japan did surrender after the bomb was used, but too many innocent people died for such. We strongly feel that no matter how harsh it may sound, the atom bomb indeed had to be dropped as at that point in time losing more ken from the army was not a choice for the allies given their small force after the defeat of Germany. The loss of the lives in Japan cannot be disregarded at all, because it is morally wrong. In situation like these there's no better good, no justice and no right wrong answers. Either way any solution benefit some while harm others, and cannot be justified in any way possible
Given that the focus at hand is nations possessing said weapons, the problem will naturally shift to a point where one can ask: Is it then justified to use WMD against insurgents? Will it warrant a airstrike onto villages where insurgents may hide? Can countries do these in the name of justice? Unfortunately, there have many cases of WMD being deployed against insurgents around the globe. For example, in South Africa during the 1970s, Anthrax and cholera are provided to Rhodesian troops for use against guerrilla rebels. During the Cold War, the Soviet Union was accused of using Yellow Rain (trichothecene mycotoxins) in Laos and Kampuchea. Many scenarios of such will arise, and often they are justified by the allies as doing it for the greater good. This argument is flawed because the greater good is often not specified. Our society works in a way that blinds away from truths; many still believe that the Quran orders it's followers to fight for Allah, and that all Muslims are terrorists. All these shallow-minded assumptions stems from the news that is being portrayed to us by the media. Likewise, if the army were to only use what their intelligence provide for them, no matter how detailed the report is, the commanders in charge will always have a flawed picture of the battlefield. Their decisions does not affect their lives, it's not their parents getting killed after all. This flaw should then remove the basis that such weapons can be discharged because they are fighting the “insurgents”. The thing is that one must acknowledge the extent of such weapons. It is simply not the same as the army storming the area; missiles unfortunately do not have a terrorist recognition feature. As such the usage of such weapons should be prohibited at all cost. Such weapons not only prove a threat to humankind, but also destroy innocent lives along with those targeted. Insurgents do not have a prominent army camp like those in the developed countries; they live among the villages. This makes dealing collateral damage even more unlawful; an innocent person shouldn't die because of a terrorist in their village.
Unlike other subjects on the earth, WMDs does not hold any benefits the world could possibly use. They destroy not only the current generation, but also the future generation which have to deal with the aftermath and the reparations the country is burdened with. No country has the right to WMDs, and arms races in this field should not even take place in the first place. Countries are often affected by their allies who choose to pursue WMDs, and have to often pay repercussions (Cuba during the middle crisis) that will enslave the country even after the issue is over . Unfortunately, in the 21st century it is simply not practical for one country to denuclearise solely, its either all or none. It will endanger a country to not have said weapons when its hostile neighbours harbour weapons capable of wiping them 3 times over. The current situation for these countries is unfortunately a paradox: they will never use the weapons, but cannot rid of them. We strongly believe in the prohibition of such weapons, given their unlawful way of attacking. As such, we are against WMDs in any circumstance, and diplomacy should hold priority in any situation given the devastating effect a nuclear/biological/chemical war occurs today.