• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Barrington Dyer and develops the inception of this report, its thesis, and motivation as well as examining U.S. policy regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Extracts from this document...


Section Summary Section one is written by Barrington Dyer and develops the inception of this report, its thesis, and motivation as well as examining U.S. policy regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Section two is written by Scott Jungwirth examines the U.S.'s conflict with North Korea and its weapons programs. Section three is written by Amit Makker and investigates the India/Pakistan nuclear tests conflict along with U.S.'s involvement in the matter. Section four is written by Albert Ryu and explores the impending threat of Iran and its weapons of mass destruction on the U.S.. Section five is written by Ricky Chun and examines the relation between Iraq and the U.S. and controversy surrounding Iraq's and the U.S. actions. Section six is written by Barrington Dyer with supplement from Scott Jungwirth, Amit Makker, Albert Ryu, and Ricky Chun, and concludes the report. The Bibliography and Glossary are the result of a group collaboration. The report is assembled and submitted courtesy of Ricky Chun. I. Introduction On August 6, 1945, the United States sent a message that resonated throughout the world with the dropping of the first Atomic b**b on Hiroshima, not only effectively ending the Second World War but setting a new president in terms of destruction caused by weaponry. In short, the United States established itself as the superpower of the world with its new found monopoly on nuclear weapons. Almost exactly four years to the day latter, the Soviet Union ended this monopoly with the detonation of its first nuclear weapon in Ustyurt ousting the US from its position of supreme dominance and leveling the field. This trend continued and soon several other countries including the United Kingdom and China developed and tested their own nuclear weapons giving rise to a new era of development of weapons of mass destruction. Off course, the atomic b**b was not the first weapon to coin the term 'Weapon of Mass Destruction', nor was it the first to bear it; it merely added an additional category to a faction of agents and devices under an umbrella of arsenal collectively known as Weapons of Mass Destruction. ...read more.


Within this doctrine, the U.S. uses its strength and intelligence to deter potential threats, flexing its military prowess and its uncanny ability to gain inside information. The goal of counterproliferation is quite simple, effective response in the event that a hostile state manages to obtain or develop weapons of mass destruction, achieving this goal, however, is quit a bit more complex. To simplify the matter counterproliferation is divided into three steps, the first step being interdiction; the idea here being to actively prevent hostile or potentially hostile states from obtaining weapons of mass destruction or weapon of mass destruction capabilities. Fulfilling this objective includes intercepting weapons of mass destruction before their delivery to a hostile state, capturing and prosecuting individuals disseminating information that could enhance a hostile state's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. In the event that these efforts fail and a hostile state obtains weapons of mass destruction the U.S. moves to the second step of counterproliferation which is deterrence. In this step the U.S. tries to deter an attack by a hostile state through the threat of retaliation. Essentially, the U.S. tries to make it such that no state or group would think twice about using weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. because the cost of the U.S.'s response to the attacking state or group would be so much greater that it would not even be worth it. This is evident from the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction where it is stated that "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force-including through resort to all our options-to the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies"(3). For some hostile states, however, this threat may still not be great enough to persuade against using weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. ...read more.


This effectively concludes the examination of the U.S.'s policy regarding weapons of mass destruction. From this point on the duration of this report is conducted via case studies. Through examination of case by case scenarios of the U.S.'s relation with each of the five countries in question(North Korea, India/Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq) the U.S.'s current policy, global objectives, and security concerns regarding weapons of mass destruction and how they impacted these countries will further be revealed. VI. Conclusion Taking in consideration the U.S.'s history, policy, and interaction with other countries regarding weapons of mass destruction as a whole, what can be gathered from all this? If anything is certain it is that weapons of mass destruction are, and will continue to prevail, among us. Furthermore, the U.S. has and will continue to play both sides of the fence; both as a country possessing weapons of mass destruction and as one trying to limit other countries from obtaining them, striking a dangerous balance. The question of whether or not weapons of mass destruction are right or wrong is no longer relevant; they exist and will continue to exist for some time. What it is relevant, however, is how to deal with them. Because of the U.S.'s unique position in the world and its superpower status, how it deals with this issue will ultimately impact the rest of the world and provoke positive or negative results. There is no book of ethical behavior in regards to weapons of mass destruction. That is why it is imperative to question the ethics of the U.S.'s policy, global objectives and security concerns regarding weapons of mass destruction as they affected other countries and groups so to learn from mistakes made. To recap from the case studies conducted some of the areas that should be questioned are; Insert ethical questions in italicized format. Ultimately, though they might uphold peace, weapons of mass destruction are instruments of death and destruction. All those who posses them are instrumentalist in a lethal symphony, and the Untied States, as it stands, is the conductor. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Morality of War section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Morality of War essays

  1. Even if conventional war is acceptable in Catholic teaching, the possession and use of ...

    solve it, this means nuclear war and any other type of violent should not take place in any ways.

  2. Free essay

    The Role of the Accident Compensation Corporation in the Prevention of Family Violence in ...

    and associated workforce development. Evaluations of health care professional training in the USA (Edelson 2000) have shown that universal screening does increase the identification of adult-female victims of intimate partner abuse. Edelson does however caution on the lack of knowledge of the effects of this screening on those who are

  1. The question is, what is happiness? And is technology being exported to benefit ...

    We polluted other countries with what Ullrich refers to as the "European myth" that prosperity could be reached through an accumulation of material goods. But in the process we seem to have created more problems; and people are still not happy.

  2. Biological weapons

    Most countries applied this convention since, in 1980, the USSR was the first one accused to violate the treaty. But, according to the Office of Technology Assessment and at US Senate committee hearing, the number increased since then and in 1995, 17 countries were considered as biological weapons suspects.

  1. Biological terrorism.

    One of the strongest points that military personnel would use in support of biological weapons is the cost to produce them. To destroy 1km it would cost approximately $1.00. It is said to be called a , " Poor Man's Atomic b**b."

  2. Nelson Mandela, "Little more than a terrorist" or "An abused leader of his people"?

    He was suspected by the government and they were looking for an excuse to get rid of him. Source E also seems to back up Mandela and prove that he is not a terrorist, the left hand image shows him in a suit and tie looking very business like.

  1. "Should America have gone to war against Iraq?"

    This was the final opportunity for Iraq to surrender their weapons and they will face serious consequences if they do not comply. In February 2003, Colin Powell stated that intelligence reports showed that there was a slight indication that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

  2. Anthrax Threat.

    Many of the materials and equipment that are used to produce biological warfare agents are available from legitimate sources and intended for other uses. The anthrax vaccine was developed in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s and was approved by the FDA in 1970.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work