Week 11 [ 15.01.2018 - 21.01.2019] Why are weapons of mass destruction worse than convetional weapons?
Why are weapons of mass destruction worse than convetional weapons?
The consequence of civilization development will be the proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction. Atomic weapons, biological and chemical weapons are future threats to the "global
village" after 2050
The construction of nuclear weapons was a technological feat World War II. Today it is a
matter of solid physics, mathematical modeling and investing the proper amount of money.
You can buy anything fot it, even if you are Iran - cut off from the world by sanctions or North
Korea, in which the bark from the trees plays the role of our sorrel. The principle is trivial - you
have money, time and physicists - you have nuclear weapons. Of course, from the academic
development and carrying out a controlled explosion in laboratory conditions to produce ready-
made loads and means of their transfer there is a very long way.
However, it should be assumed that in 2050 developing from zero to the full success of nuclear
technology to the size that would allow carrying this weapon in a travel suitcase - will be a
matter of 15 years of research, trials and tens of billions of dollars.
There will be arround 30 countries that will afford it, and worse - there will be several
paramilitary, political and openly terrorist organizations that will also be able to do so in
cooperation with the countries concerned or in the territories of the fallen or very weak states.
Source: The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, July 2017
We must also remember biological weapons, which are totally dangerous and can be used
secretly. That is, you can attack biologically a hostile country without revealing the "sender" of
the attack. Just another regional epidemic of some dangerous mutation of "bird flu". As a result
of attacking the state - its economics deteriorates people are afraid lose trus in the state,
political shock, social riots, breakdown of interpersonal bonds, famine. To create biological
weapons, human capital and a laboratory will suffice. Both can be bought with money. The
only factor that prevents even the greatest madmen from developing this weapon is its
unpredictability. That is, without a really serious scientific approach - there is no guarantee that
the virus used will not attack its own population. However, there are plenty of crazy people, so
we must remeber about the risks associated with the transfer of life-science technologies to
countries, let's call it a risk. Generally, any pharmaceutical company that produces vaccines
can produce a mutant virus accordingly. However, do societies know what is happening in the
labs? This is a great challenge for secret services.
Source: stufftoblowyourmind.com/blogs/10-scariest-bioweapons.htm
The chemical weapon after the recent Iraqi-Iranian war experience still terrifies people. It must
be remembered that this was the only thing that Adolf Hitler feared, after his own experiences
from the front. Today, the production of chemical weapons even in large quantities along with
the means of carrying it is as trivial as the production of artifical fertilizers and ordinary artillery
shells, rockets, bombs. This is no philosophy, besides it is a very cheap weapon, which
arsenals can make even the poor countries extremely dangerous from the military point of
view. The example of Syria should be scary enough. However, chemical weapons have one
drawback; it is much better to fight without chemical weapons than usning it.
Conclusions - only being better in a technology race can preserve the primacy of the West in
armament. One cannot regret money for secret service actions, on the contary - funds for this
purpose and its activity should gradually increase. Moreover, science must undergo
concentration processes and what is very important - to be somewhat transparent. The
international community must absolutely enforce peace and force "difficult" countries to open
military and dual-use projects. If any country is a threat to the international peace, it is
necessary to intervene.
- Why are weapons of mass destruction so dangerous?
- Do you think it is a real threat to the "global village" after 2050?
- What precautions must be taken regarding weapons of mass destruction?
The sources used:
Comments
Protection methods are also quite difficult, since you can't really avoid everything pointed at you, hence the actual fear is even bigger. Personally I hope we'll never have to see another successful nuclear attack, just check what happened back in the Japan.
Everyone must destroy weapons and not create, It's my opinion.
I think that 'global village' is unreal because we are different and our national authority are not the same.
It's hard to answer the third question. We can say 'we should destroy all weapons' but do you think that is possible? I think no... we can't do anything.
Do I think it is a real threat to the "global village" after 2050? Frankly? I don't care. What will happen will happen. Period.
What precautions must be taken regarding weapons of mass destruction? Ha ha ha. None
The only precaution that would work would be to not use it ever. It is too dangerous, hazardous and uncontrollable for people to claim that they can tame this.
I think that "global village" is impossible concept in the world divided by those, who have mass destruction weapons. So the threat is not that "global village" will be destroyed by mass destruction weapon, but that such concept won't become real because of such weapon.
The one and only one precaution - do not create them if you want to use them against humanity.
The last of your question is really tough one. It my opinion we are not able to stop the process of developing the weapons of mass destruction. The only thing we can do is to choose people who will represent us wisely. These kind of weapons can't fall into the wrong hands.
The weapons of mass destruction are so dangerous because of its impact on nature and environment. It could cause a big damage in people other living organisms and places. That damages could stay for a long time and make difficult to renew the live, even on the whole earth.
Do you think it is a real threat to the "global village" after 2050?
It is real, people have power to destruct whole earth and bad decisions could have dramatic effects.
What precautions must be taken regarding weapons of mass destruction?
One solution - peace in the world, in other cases people could use this weapons to destruct the enemy.
I think it may be real threat in the future but there're many project that fights with development of mass destruction weapons.
I think the only way to prevent using such weapons in evil way is to have well trained and developed intelligence.
I believe that weapons of mass destruction aren't only dangerous, but also terrifying. At the moment you can destroy everything that people built for years, and also kill thousands of lives. In my opinion, we should not treat it as a threat and I don't think that it would be a real threat after 2050. Heads of State know the power of such bombs and don't want to use them.
I think that that such weapons are real threat to the "global village".
Propably banning such weapons and destroyig whole a arsenal would be good but enforcement such thing is very difficult. Not everyone will be happy about that.
The weapons of mass destruction are dangerous, because they can be used to kill a large number of people. Some of them can also cause a very long-term damage to the environmental resources.
WMD, especially nuclear weapons, certainly pose a real threat in the modern age. We should make sure that groups, which hold antidemocratic views, do not manage to successfully complete their enrichment programs to produce uranium.
2. I think such threat takes place every day. We are not conscious of that, how serious it can be and how close to such disaster we are so often. I’ve read about many dangerous experiments made in this respect. Many catastrophes which we consider as natural ones, are provoked by such activities. And I guess we balance with such threat very often and it is possible that step by step we are closer and closer to “the end”.
3. In my opinion it should be forbidden, definitely. All the other activities cannot prevent “total danger” in fact. We should consequently cut down such possibilities and forget about war as grown up civilization. But this is too ideal to be possible, unfortunately.
When it comes to precautions, I don't really think that much can be done. I mean, a falling bomb cannot be stopped with words, once triggered it will explode, no matter what. It is too late to do anything about them existing, and we cannot really influence if they will get triggered someday or not. Lets just hope for the best.
Why are weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION worse than conventional weapons (OF NORMAL DESTRUCTION) xD
>Why are weapons of mass destruction so dangerous?
Cause they are "global" - where a normal bomb/rocket/bullet is usually designed to kill one man or group of them, WMD purges both the target, and hundreds/thousands of people/equipment around it. We conceive "to be nuked" as "to be wiped out" for a reason...
>Do you think it is a real threat to the "global village" after 2050?
It could be, that is if any "bad guy" gets his hands on enough materials to build it.
>What precautions must be taken regarding weapons of mass destruction?
"Handle with care" stickers on them, and not giving shady-looking people your rockets' codes.
Man historically have to deal with two conflicts: the desire to survive and to exterminate their own kind. As the saying is, the strongest survives. Natural selection has evolved with the development of human thinking and technology, and control of the population
is now provided by nature through the war - extermination of man by man. To some extent, this is a solution to the problem of overpopulation. But what is the price? Someone will say, "This is a great idea" until it turns out to be a target or a participant in the war.
What measures should be taken with respect to nuclear weapons?
- Expansion of nuclear-weapon-free zones;
- Nuclear testing Ban;
- Control over the transfer of nuclear materials, technologies and equipment.
What measures should be taken with respect to biological weapons?
- Prevention of potential danger for the population
- Use of protection in case of a virus
- Collective protection of the population, provision of shelters
The more I read the articles, the more I am amazed at how many problems humanity is creating by itself :(
It is hard to predict what will happen in 2050. It's possible that everything will be fine.
I think that people have to take steps to ensure the safety of the world...