A weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a weapon that can kill and bring significant harm to a large numbers of humans (and other life forms) and/or cause great damage to man-made structures (e.g. buildings), natural structures (e.g. mountains), or the biosphere in general. The scope
and application of the term has evolved and been disputed, often signifying more politically than technically. Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN). (wikipedia.org, 2010)
During the Cold War, the term "weapons of mass destruction" was primarily a reference to nuclear weapons. At the time, as a necessary deterrent against nuclear or conventional attack from the Soviet Union (see Mutual Assured Destruction), and the euphemism "strategic weapons" was used to refer to the American nuclear arsenal. (wikipedia.org, 2010)
The use of biological sciences and technologies to fight disease and hunger, and to create new carbon- neutral fuel sources, has enormous potential to improve quality of life and mitigate climate change. Some biotechnologies, however, could also potentially be used to create biological weapons designed to incapacitate or kill people or spread livestock and crop diseases.
WMD is a subject that you can find in the daily news; I remember that in the war against Iraq the main idea was to unarm Iraq because there was a theory that they had a large and growing stockpile WMD. Also there were efforts to stop North Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. There was revelation that Pakistani scientists were illicitly selling nuclear weapons technology in the black market.
I think that we have a controversy in regard to nuclear weapons, are we in danger? Whether countries like Russia or the US should reduce the number of nuclear weapons? I also remember that in the recent Bush administration his made a proposal, to have nuclear weapons under US-Russian arms and that these weapons will be dismantled rather than destroyed, preserving the option of reconstituting them.
Bibliography
wikipedia.org. (2010, October 5). Retrieved October 2010, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction
Picture
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/WMD_world_map.svg/500px-WMD_world_map.svg.png
Weapons of mass destruction it’s a difficult topic to accept, mainly because I think it’s ridiculous how countries spend money in creating powerful weapons and knowing that there’s a child that it’s starving to death. And what it’s worst it’s that as you say you can see in the news every day a report about it. Also it’s unbelievable that someone could do this kind of weapons knowing the damage that could take place.
ResponderEliminarWeapons are not the solution to peace, communication is what can make world peace, but third world countries, always want to have the power and for this reason that the weapons exist, it is very unfortunate but it's reality, would be very nice to live in a world where peace and communication between countries
ResponderEliminar"are we in danger?" Of course, it is obvious with all thath they have created, at any moment we can disappear.
ResponderEliminar