Should Chemical and Biological Weapons be banned?

Authors Avatar

Should Chemical and Biological Weapons be banned?

Chemical and biological weapons are the oldest form of the so-called weapons of mass destruction, having been widely used in the grim trenches of World War I.  The use and development of these weapons is a controversial issue. The discussion is mainly on the issue of whether chemical and biological weapons should be banned. People arguing for the development of the weapons are that the best protection against chemical and biological warfare is the fear of revenge with equal force. But the others say that the weapons are by their nature immoral and should be eliminated.

Chemical and biological weapons are by their nature immoral and should be banned completely. Biological and chemical weapons, unlike conventional weaponry, kill, maim, or sicken soldiers. They tend to kill civilians, including women and children, as it cannot be controlled once used. The symptoms of attack can be extremely painful and lead to a slow painful death. The effect of using these harmful weapons often cannot be controlled and measured. The spread of these weapons happen mostly in gas or aqueous forms. Although the Geneva Protocols ban use of these weapons, they do not ban their manufacture or storage. “Between the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and 2008, the end of the Bush presidency, the United States has spent $44 billion on bioterrorism weapons; all without an adequate needs survey.” (Patricia George, Biological and Chemical Weapons Should be Banned. 2009)  If the CBW is eliminated the money could be used to solve more urgent problems.

Join now!

Some people argue that the best protection against chemical and biological warfare is the fear of revenge with the equal force. After Germany first used mustard gas at the end of World War I, an international treaty banned the use of chemical or biological weapons, but not their production or warehousing. This treaty reflected the idea that the fear of revenge was a powerful reason for any country not to unleash these weapons. The rise of non-state actors, like al Qaeda has raised apprehensions that fear of revenge may not be effective against terrorists. The answer lies not in eliminating ...

This is a preview of the whole essay