Weapons of Mass Destruction
Cori Burt
Technology and the Soul
Final Paper
Today, there is a constant threat of weapons of mass destruction being used as defense mechanism and to show a countries strength. How is a weapon of mass destruction or WMD classified? Generally, it is a weapon that can kill a large amount of people with little to no effort or destroy or cause great damage to buildings. WMD includes but is not limited to the biological, chemical and nuclear weapons that exist today. In military context there are other terms know as the ABC's or the atomic, biological and chemical or the CBRN's which are chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons. When I think of WMD, the first thought that comes to my mind is the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II, in 1945.
In Bill Joy's essay "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" he touches briefly about the WMD and the effect that they had. Joy states that "we knew in preparing this first atomic test the physicists preceded despite a large number of possible dangers... And, of course, there was the clear danger of starting a nuclear arms race" (20). A month after a test of the bombs they were dropped on Hiroshima and then three days later on Nagasaki as well. At first scientists questioned 'Did it work?' and then the question soon turned to 'What have we done?' Are all weapons of mass destruction like this? Are weapons of mass destruction the reason women have limited roles they can play in the military?
Before anyone can be considered a soldier they must go through basic training and part of basic training is going through the NBC Chamber. The NBC chamber is also known as the gas-chamber. NBC stands for nuclear, biological, and chemical. At basic training, the day starts off with classroom instruction and being taught the proper techniques to wear and clear a mask. The chamber is designed to train soldiers how to react and know the signs of a chemical or biological gas attack. For a while, Russia was believed to have stored away the virus known as small pox and was threatening to release it into the air over the United States. Should countries be allowed to have this power?
A nuclear attack is a device that can create mass destruction and chaos. The Carnegie Endowment for Internal Peace in 2004 researched how many nuclear war heads could be held by various countries. The United States and Russia combined had the most totaling almost 28,000 nuclear warheads. These numbers are estimates based on what could be produced by the countries weapons grade nuclear material. On top of their list is Russia with 18,000; next is the U.S with 9,000, followed by France, the U.K. and China. India, Israel and Pakistan, all of whom have not signed the Nuclear ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
A nuclear attack is a device that can create mass destruction and chaos. The Carnegie Endowment for Internal Peace in 2004 researched how many nuclear war heads could be held by various countries. The United States and Russia combined had the most totaling almost 28,000 nuclear warheads. These numbers are estimates based on what could be produced by the countries weapons grade nuclear material. On top of their list is Russia with 18,000; next is the U.S with 9,000, followed by France, the U.K. and China. India, Israel and Pakistan, all of whom have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), all have the power to produce more than 300 warheads. It is unknown still after the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan is such countries have such capabilities or such weapons. Still today, more research and studies need to be done to be sure. North Korea and Iran are both countries that are still being considered in whether or not they have been developing nuclear bombs. I believe that if other countries have actual weapons of mass destruction then we should too.
The term biological warfare can be dated back to 1500 B.C. Biological warfare (BW) is also known as germ warfare. Its intents are to severely incapacitate in victims, kill or seriously impede them. Throughout history BW, has taking many forms and most commonly three major one: 1) deliberate poisoning of food, contaminating of water supplies, 2) use of microorganisms, in humans of animals, dead or alive, in a weapon system and 3) use of biologically inoculated fabrics. In 1972, the U.S. signed the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention, which banned the "development, production and stockpiling of microbes or their poisonous products except in amounts necessary for protective and peaceful research" (Cordesman). By 1996, 137 countries had signed the treaty; however, it is believed that since the signing of the Convention the number of countries capable of producing such weapons has increased. How is this allowed to happen? Doesn't signing a treaty mean an equal agreement of all parties included? Shouldn't the treaty prohibit all future countries from producing such things as well?
Chemical warfare was has been around since the medieval period in history. Basically, chemical warfare is related using a toxic substance to injure, kill or incapacitate a person. The major difference between chemical and nuclear warfare is that there is no explosive effect in the deliverance of chemicals. Most of the time, the chemicals are put into warheads to be sent to a targeted enemy. The warhead is not intended to blow up, only to spread/deliver the gases. Chemicals in the form of gases are used to incapacitate a person's respiratory system, but from prolonged exposure it could kill a person. Many people have heard a tear gas, OC/pepper spray and mustard gas. However, there are many types of nerve agents and chemical gases that are much more deadly and less commonly used. About 70 different chemicals have been used or stockpiled as chemical warfare agents during the 20th century. Chemical weapons are classified as weapons of mass destruction by the United Nations, and their production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993. Did this convention really serve their purpose? Why are soldiers still being prepared for chemical attacks if there isn't supposed to be anymore chemical warfare?
Ray Kurzweil is a genius mind, in my opinion. He worked for years on nanotechnology and robots for the future. He was one of the first people to discover a tool to help the blind read. But when asked by Charles Copper of the CNET News about his thoughts of the promise and peril of this century in context of technological change, Kurzweil responded with, "If you look at today, you can see tremendous benefit from technology by looking back 200 years when human life expectancy was half what it is today. We're measurably better off, but there are also many dangers. We have the firepower to blow life off the planet, and there are lots of other weapons of mass destruction. Technology is powerful and gives great power to individuals." Technology has come a long way. To think that in past wars every soldier would run around and possibly not even have a helmet where now a days there are entire suits made and warn to be protected from bullets and NBC gas attacks. I believe that technology is important and affects everybody in the world today no matter how rich or poor, intelligent or not.
Bigger and better things are always being developed, especially in the world of the military. I joined the Army in 2007 and since then I have always been compared to my fellow soldiers. Not only the females, but also the males and how there will always be things that they can do and I can't simply because I am a female. The best example of how a female and male has never really been on the same level is depicted well in the 1997 movie, G.I. Jane. Demi Moore plays the lead role and gets the nick name of G.I. Jane as she goes through the toughest training there is, Navy Seals training where there is a 60% drop out rate of male recruits who actually volunteer for the program. Throughout the movie Moore is pushed to the limit and is ultimately tested like all the males and they finally accept her. The Master Chief played by Viggo Mortensen describes women in the military best when he is talking with Demi Moore and tells her how the Chinese had tried to integrate women into their front lines and failed. He said that men couldn't take the sight of women being blown open and dying on the battle fields. Are those really grounds for why a female cannot be in the same fighting position as a male? Who decides whether a male's life is more expendable than a female?
No matter which way to look at a military situation, men always come out on top. Even if I was the person to save 5 people in Iraq from a chemical attack, my senior sergeant (who is a male) would be the one getting rewarded. I would get a pat on the bag and perhaps a "thanks" and "good job". But, I would not be wearing any service ribbons on my chest nor have any awards given to me. How this is fair after the women's rights acts of the sixties? Has anything actually changed in the world today?
Works Cited
Cordesman, Anthony H. Terrorism, Asymmetric Warfare, & Weapons of Mass Destruction: Defending the U.S. Homeland. Greenwood Publishing Group Incorporated, 2001. 1 Dec. 2008 <http://site.ebrary.com/?lib/?umass/?Top?channelName=umass&cpage=1&docID=10005689&f00=text&frm=smp.x&hitsPerPage=20&layout=document&p00=weapons+of+mass+destruction+and+technology&sch=%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0Search%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0&sortBy=score&sortOrder=desc>.
"Facts about women in the military." Feminism and Women's Studies. 2008. 2 Dec. 2008 <http://feminism.eserver.org/?workplace/?professions/?women-in-the-military.txt>.
Joy, Bill. "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us." Wired 13 May 2004: 1-32. 18 Nov. 2008 <http://www.wired.com.wired/?archive/?8.04/?joy.html>.
Kurzweil, Ray. Interview with Charles Cooper. Ray Kurzweil: Don't fear the nonofuture. CNET News. 19 Mar. 2001. Transcript. 11 Dec. 2008 <http://news.cnet.com/?2008-1082-254344.html>.
Nye, David E. "More Securit, or Escalating Dangers?" Technology Matters: Questions to Live With. Cambridge: M.I.T Press, 2006. 161-181. 1 Dec. 2008 <http://site.ebrary.com/?lib/?umass/?Top?channelName=umass&cpage=1&d=all&docID=10173620&f00=text&f01=subject&frm=adv.x&hitsPerPage=20&l=en&layout=document&p00=women+in+the+military&p01=technology&sch=%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0Search%A0%A0%A0%A0%A0&sortBy=score&sortOrder=desc>.
Schnepp, Rob. "High Technology and the Fire Service." Fire Engineering 157 (Nov. 2006): 13-16. 24 Nov. 2008 <http://web.ebscohost.com/?ehost/?search?vid=1&hid=108&sid=3dee982d-29c2-4ff9-829e-a286a045c2a5%40sessionmgr102>. Path: http://web.ebscohost.com/?ehost/?detail?vid=5&hid=108&sid=180f2856-e99c-4d16-b200-56e46b5b4cde%40sessionmgr103&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=15088326.
"The Threat is Very real." Editorial. Boston Herald [Boston] 18 July 2007: 24. 1 Dec. 2008 <http://proquest.umi.com/?pqdweb?index=12&did=1306545291&SrchMode=2&sid=1&Fmt=3&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1228149209&clientId=46815>.
Page 1 of 7
