| Weapons Of Mass Destruction |
Article Index for Weapons Of |
Shopping Destruction |
Articles about Weapons Of Mass Destruction |
Website Links For Weapons |
Information AboutWeapons Of Mass Destruction |
|
Weapon of mass destruction ('''WMD''') are weapons which can kill large numbers of human beings, animals and plants. The term covers several weapon types, including Nuclear , Biological , Chemical ('''NBC''') and, increasingly, Radiological Weapon s. There is Controversy over when the term was first used, either in 1937 (in reference to the Mass Destruction Of Guernica , Spain , by aerial Bombardment ) or in 1945 (with reference to nuclear weapons). Following the Atomic Bombings Of Hiroshima And Nagasaki , and progressing through the Cold War , the term came to refer more to non- Conventional Weapon s. The phrase entered widespread usage in relation to the U.S.-led 2003 Invasion Of Iraq . Terms used in a military context include ''atomic, biological, and chemical warfare'' (ABC warfare), nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) after the invention of the Hydrogen Bomb , and Chemical, Biological, Radiological, And Nuclear (CBRN), recognizing the threat of Subcritical radiological weapons. Due to the indiscriminate impacts caused by WMD, the fear of WMD has shaped political policies and campaigns, fostered social movements, and has been the central theme of many films. Support for different levels of WMD development and control varies nationally and internationally. Yet understanding of the nature of the threats is not high, in part because of imprecise usage of the term by politicians and the media. HISTORIC USE OF THE TERM ''WMD'' Origin The first reported usage of the term was by Rev. Cosmo Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, part of his 1937 Christmas sermon broadcast on national radio. In an address titled "Christian Responsibility," Lang said: "Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?""Archbishop's Appeal," At that time, there were no nuclear weapons; biological weapons were already being researched by ), and chemical weapons had seen wide use. , 1945 meeting of Harry Truman , Clement Attlee and Mackenzie King (probably drafted by Vannevar Bush — or so Bush claimed in 1970) referred to "weapons adaptable to mass destruction". That exact phrase, says Safire, was also used by Bernard Baruch in 1946 (in a speech at the United Nations probably written by Herbert Bayard Swope ). "Weapons of Mass Destruction", ''New York Times Magazine'', April 19 , 1998 , p.22. Accessed online 24 February 2007 . The same phrase found its way into the UN resolution to create the Atomic Energy Commission (predecessor of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) ), which used the wording "…atomic weapons and of all other weapons adaptable to mass destruction". An exact use of this term was given in a lecture "Atomic Energy as a Contemporary Problem" by J. Robert Oppenheimer. The lecture was delivered to the Foregn Service and the State Department, on September 17th, 1947. The lecture is reprinted in "The Open Mind" (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1955). "It is a very far reaching control which would eliminate the rivalry between nations in this field, which would prevent the surreptitious arming of one nation against another, which would provide some cushion of time before atomic attack, and presumably therefore before any attack with weapons of mass destruction, and which would go a long way toward removing atomic energy at least as a source of conflict between the powers." An early use of the exact phrase in an international Treaty was in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, however no definition was provided. The Cold War and the War against Terrorism The term "''WMD''" had fallen out of use since the early Cold War era, when it was primarily a reference to nuclear weapons. At the time, the US stockpiles of thermonuclear weapons were regarded as a necessary deterrent against an all-out strike from the Soviet Union (see Mutual Assured Destruction ). Hence the less dysphemistic military term ''strategic weapons'' fell into favor with US policy-makers who approved of, or at least condoned, the amassed American nuclear arsenal. In 1990 and during the 1991 Gulf War , ''WMD'' was resurrected and used prolifically by The Clinton Administration , namely Madeleine Albright , by other western politicians and the media, despite having a fairly antique aura. They referred more specifically to the chemical weapons that were in Iraq under Hussein’s regime. "Weapons of mass destruction" replaced "strategic weapons" in the common American lexicon. After 9/11 , it would be the Anthrax Attacks , and the multitude of hypothetical smallpox terrorist attack scenarios in the media that would shape the prevalent image of a weapon of mass destruction into a device of Bioterrorism . This usage reached a crescendo with the 2002 Iraq Disarmament Crisis and the Alleged Existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq that became the primary justification for the 2003 Invasion Of Iraq . Because of its prolific use, the American Dialect Society voted WMD the Word Of The Year in 2002 and in 2003 Lake Superior State University added WMD to its list of terms banished for "''Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness''"[http://www.lssu.edu/banished/archive/2003.php . The most widely used definition is that of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons (NBC) although there is no Treaty or customary International Law that contains an authoritative definition. Instead, international law has been used with respect to the specific categories of weapons within WMD, and not to WMD as a whole. The acronym NBC is used with regards to battlefield protection systems for armored vehicles, because all 3 involve insidious toxins that can be carried through the air and can be protected against with vehicle air filtration systems. However, there is an argument that nuclear weapons do not belong in the same category as chemical, biological, or "dirty-bomb" radiological weapons, which have limited destructive potential (and close to none, as far as property is concerned), whereas nuclear weapons are immensely destructive and could be said to belong in a class by themselves. The NBC definition has also been used in official {Link without Title} . Other documents expand the definition of WMD to include radiological or Conventional Weapon s. The US Military refers to WMD as: Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, but exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon. The significance of the words ''separable and divisible part of the weapon'' is that missiles such as the Pershing II and the SCUD are considered weapons of mass destruction, while aircraft capable of carrying bombloads are not. While in US Civil Defense , the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as: (1) Any Explosive , Incendiary , Poison Gas , bomb, Grenade , or Rocket having a Propellant charge of more than four ounces g , Missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce g , or Mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release Radiation at a level dangerous to human life. The US , at the 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, quoted the Millennium Report of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly, in which Kofi Annan said that small arms could be described as WMD because the fatalities they cause "''dwarf that of all other weapons systems - and in most years greatly exceed the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki ''"http://disarmament.un.org/cab/smallarms/statements/colombiaE.html. Chemical weapons expert Gert G. Harigel considers only nuclear weapons true weapons of mass destruction, because "''only nuclear weapons are completely indiscriminate by their explosive power, heat radiation and radioactivity, and only they should therefore be called a weapon of mass destruction''". He prefers to call chemical and biological weapons "''weapons of terror''" when aimed against civilians and "''weapons of intimidation''" for soldiers. Testimony of one such soldier expresses the same viewpoint {Link without Title} . For a period of several months in the winter of 2002-2003, US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz frequently used the term "''weapons of mass terror''," apparently also recognizing the distinction between the psychological and the physical effects of many things currently falling into the WMD category. An additional condition often implicitly applied to WMD is that the use of the weapons must be strategic. In other words, they would be designed to "''have consequences far outweighing the size and effectiveness of the weapons themselves''" {Link without Title} . The strategic nature of WMD also defines their function in the military doctrine of Total War as targeting the means a country would use to support and supply its war effort, specifically its population, industry, and natural resources. ''The Washington Post'' reported on 3/30/2006: "Jurors asked the judge in the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui today to define the term "weapons of mass destruction" and were told it includes airplanes used as missiles". Moussaoui was indicted and tried for the use of airplanes as WMD under 18 USC 2332a (see above). WMD USE AND CONTROL See Also: Arms control The development and use of WMD is governed by international Conventions And Treaties , although not all countries have signed and ratified them:
In 1996 the International Court Of Justice Provided An Advisory Opinion regarding the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. The statement is an authoritative legal pronouncement but not legally binding. It stated that any threat of the use of force, or the use of force, by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter or that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51 would be unlawful. Adopted by the UN Security Council on April 28 , 2004 , UN Resolution 1540 recognizes the threat posed to international peace and security by nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery. It calls upon greater effort by nations to limit proliferation of such weapons. Weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, are rarely used because their use is essentially an "invitation" for a WMD retaliation, which in turn could escalate into a war so destructive it could easily destroy huge segments of the world's population. During the Cold War, this understanding became known as Mutually Assured Destruction and was largely the reason war never broke out between the WMD-armed United States and Soviet Union . WMD USE, POSSESSION AND ACCESS Nuclear weapons , 1945-2002]] See Also: List of countries with nuclear weapons The only country to have used a nuclear weapon in war is the , Germany , Italy , the Netherlands , and Turkey . North Korea has claimed to have developed and tested nuclear devices; although outside sources have been unable to unequivocally support the state's claims, North Korea has officially been identified to have nuclear weapons. UNITED STATES POLITICS Fear of WMD, or of threats diminished by the possession of WMD, has long been used to catalyse public support for various WMD policies. They include mobilization of pro- and anti-WMD campaigners alike, and generation of popular political support. The term WMD may be used as a powerful buzzword or to generate a Culture Of Fear .[http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1256 . It is also used ambiguously, particularly by not distinguishing among the different types of WMD.[https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20021007&s=easterbrook100702] A Television Commercial called '' Daisy '', promoting Democrat Lyndon Johnson 's 1964 Presidential Candidacy , invoked the fear of a nuclear war and was an element in Johnson's subsequent election. More recently, the threat of potential WMD in Iraq was used by George W. Bush to generate public support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Broad reference to Iraqi WMD in general was seen as an element of Bush's arguments.[https://ssl.tnr.com/p/docsub.mhtml?i=20021007&s=easterbrook100702 As Paul Wolfowitz explained: "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."Qtd. in '', May 30 , 2003 , accessed May 8 , 2007 . To date, however, Coalition Forces have found only trace amounts of chemical weaponry, consisting mainly of degraded artillery shells. On June 21, 2006, United States Senator Rick Santorum claimed that "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, chemical weapons." According to the Washington Post, he was referring to 500 such shells "that had been buried near the Iranian border, and then long forgotten, by Iraqi troops during their eight-year war with Iran, which ended in 1988." That night, "intelligence officials reaffirmed that the shells were old and were not the suspected weapons of mass destruction sought in Iraq after the 2003 invasion." The shells had been uncovered and reported on in 2004.[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101837.html] MEDIA COVERAGE OF WMD In 2004 the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) released a report {Link without Title} by Prof. Susan Moeller examining the media’s coverage of WMD issues during three separate periods: India’s Nuclear Weapons Tests in May 1998 ; the US announcement of evidence of a North Korean Nuclear Weapons Program in October 2002 ; and revelations about Iran's Nuclear Program in May 2003 . The CISSM report notes that poor coverage resulted less from political Bias Among The Media than from tired journalistic conventions. The report’s major findings were that: # ''Most media outlets represented WMD as a monolithic menace, failing to adequately distinguish between weapons programs and actual weapons or to address the real differences among chemical, biological, nuclear, and radiological weapons. # ''Most journalists accepted the Bush Administration’s formulation of the “ War On Terror ” as a campaign against WMD, in contrast to coverage during the Clinton era, when many journalists made careful distinctions between acts of Terrorism and the acquisition and use of WMD. # ''Many stories stenographically reported the incumbent administration’s perspective on WMD, giving too little critical examination of the way officials framed the events, issues, threats, and policy options. # ''Too few stories proffered alternative perspectives to official line, a problem exacerbated by the Journalistic prioritizing of breaking-news stories and the “ Inverted Pyramid ” style of storytelling. In a separate study published in 2005 {Link without Title} , a group of researchers assessed the effects reports and retractions in the media had on people’s Memory regarding the Search For WMD In Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War. The study focused on populations in two Coalition countries ( Australia and USA) and one opposed to the war ( Germany ). Results showed that US citizens generally did not correct initial misconceptions regarding WMD, even following disconfirmation; Australian and German citizens were more responsive to retractions. Dependence on the initial source of information led to a substantial minority of Americans exhibiting False Memory that WMD were indeed discovered, while they were not. This led to three conclusions: # ''The repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people. # ''Once information is published, its subsequent correction does not alter people's beliefs unless they are suspicious about the motives underlying the events the news stories are about. # ''When people ignore corrections, they do so irrespective of how certain they are that the corrections occurred. A poll conducted between June and September of 2003 asked people whether they thought WMD had been discovered in Iraq since the war ended. They were also asked which media sources they relied upon. Those who obtained their news primarily from Fox News were three times as likely to believe that evidence confirming WMD had been discovered in Iraq than those who relied on PBS and NPR for their news, and one third more likely than those who primarily watched CBS. Based on a series of polls taken from June-September 2003 ''Misperceptions, the Media and the Iraq War'' , PIPA, October 2, 2003. |
|
|