The debates surrounding ethical issues on military strategies are based on the limited moral bandwidth that war is. The USA is quite outspoken on the military policies they undertake on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) in and out of its borders. This essay answers three questions based on WMD's global threat, the US's related policies, and their pros and cons.
What is the global threat of proliferation and use of weapons of mass destruction (i.e., what nations pose the most global threat)?
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
With the rise in technological advancements, it is easier for a nation to acquire a WMD, either biological or non-biological, with complete disregard for international conventions. WMD includes nuclear, biological, and chemical materials made for the sole purpose of the destruction of life ( Frinking et al.,2017). Nations like Russia, Iran, North Korea, China, and even Israel possess such weapons that threaten global peace. Treaties like the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention are meant to control the use of such arsenal primarily for attacks on others ( Guthrie, 2016). However, these countries are prime examples of nations that refuse to sign or obey the treaty and are cause for alarm for the USA and its allies. Like Iran or Russia, some of them are suspected of converting civilian research to weaponized advances to increase their military standing. Like China, others prefer a silent approach to any accusations and turned their way on their WMD possession (Keener, 2020). Another matter to consider is the lax regulations that these countries and others have within their borders. The rise of some terrorist organizations like Houthi Separatists in Yemen is because of Iran’s support. Using such criminal activities to transport WMD is very common, increasing the global threat (Okoro & Oluka, 2019). Wars result from contravention of local and international treaties, and it not only affects the rebel region but its neighbors. There need to be stringent measures to limit WMD's proliferation multilaterally to limit the power of such rogue nations.
What policies and systems do the United States have in place to counter the global threat
Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, when passenger air plans were used as WMD to kill thousands, the US has been more proactive in its global threats policies. One of its controversial policies was creating a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Russia, North Korea, and Iran in 2015. This system was put in place to monitor these regions' nuclear potential while lifting economic sanctions placed on them ( Martellini et al., 2016). Even today, negotiations are still taking place to ensure such countries are controlled when it comes to nuclear power. The USA calls fin WMD sanctions a contentious issue, but it increases and finesses its weaponry. According to its government, its policy on increasing its stockpile tenfold is to protect themselves and other vulnerable nations. This non-compliance to their cease-and-desist rules on warfare development makes an already difficult conversation tricky. The USA also works with organizations like the Nuclear Threat Initiative to access information on other countries’ weapon capability while largely remaining defensive on their turf. It also supplements the no-first-use (NFU) on countries like China with the potential to be global threats to ensure restrictions on their creation of WMD (Vinson, 2018). Among others, “tries” to reassure the USA of their efforts not to engage in further activity to raise suspicion. Unfortunately, other nations' policies can only work on constant supervision, which destroys the trust between any nations with a no-WMD treaty.
Analyze the policy instruments available and address the pros and cons of those instruments
On the policy instruments available, economic sanctions have shown some significant effort in the fight against WMD. Even hard-line countries like Iran were forced to change a significant portion of their programs to avoid the USA's harsh trade restrictions (Keener, 2020). However, sanctions are not a permanent method to close down any nuclear or non-nuclear threats as some of these countries find trade partners in other countries not allied to the USA. A system that bears little fruit is incorporating international organizations, mostly US-based, to control the amount of firepower that a country has. The Geneva Protocol, among other conventions, remain strongly supported by the West and is signed by leaders who ultimately break them ( Varriale, 2018). With the increasing conflict globally, regions inherit these treaties but are forced to develop WMD programs to ensure retaliation if their enemies attack them. Also, undying feuds caused by the cold war and World War II encourages the personal development of military facilities designed to bring down thousands of people and properties alike. The promise of implementing the No-First-Use policies by countries like China remains to be just that; promises. Substantial reports claim the non-compliance of many similar regions to actualize the policy discussed with the USA( Pan, 2018) . If there is ever a permanent end to developing more significant and more advanced WMDs, there needs to be a multilateral decision made on this contentious matter. Furthermore, it should be as legally bounding as it is morally and ethically confining.
References
Frinking, E., Sinning, P., Bontje, E., della Frattina, C. F., & Abdalla, M. (2017). The increasing threat of biological weapons: Handle with sufficient and proportionate care . The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.
Keener, E. (2020). Alternate Warfare: The Unseen Weapons of Mass Destruction. Liberty University Journal of Statesmanship & Public Policy , 1 (1), 8.
Guthrie, R. (2016). Using the inputs into the inter-sessional meetings of the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention to enhance conceptualization of effectiveness for the regime to control biological weapons (Doctoral dissertation, University of Bath).
Okoro, O. I., & Oluka, N. L. (2019). Weapons of Mass Destruction and Modern Terrorism: Implications for Global Security. Asian Social Science , 15 (3).
Martellini, M., & Zucchetti, M. (2016). The Iranian Nuclear Agreement: A Scientifically Reliable, Transactional and Verifiable Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law-Volume III (pp. 471-488). TMC Asser Press, The Hague.
Pan, Z. (2018). A study of China’s no-first-use policy on nuclear weapons. Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament , 1 (1), 115-136.
Varriale, C. (2018). North Korea’s Other Weapons of Mass Destruction. Arms Control Today , 48 (7), 6-10.
Vinson, A. (2018). Weapons of Mass Debating.
