Biologicaland chemical warfare
Biologicaland chemical warfare
Thehistory of biological and chemical warfare dates back to more thansixty years ago when the chemical weapons were invented. Despite thefact that the technology that is needed to produce them is verycomplex and sophisticated, the nuclear concepts are unfortunatelywidely available and well understood (Payan, 2000). There are aboutnine countries that have been associated with producing thesebiological and chemical warfare France, China, Israel, India,Russia, Pakistan, United Kingdom, the United States and South Africa(Tucker, 2000). However, research has shown that over forty countriescould also be able to produce these nuclear weapons, if there wasenough investment in time and money as well as political policies oftheir government. Over the decades, some organized illegal groupshave in the recent past been able to avail these chemical andbiological warfare to cause global terror.
Thefield of non-proliferation has been through a significant period oftransformation and change in the recent past (Tucker, 2000). One ofthe most notably attacks that used these chemical and biologicalweapons is the September 11 attack, which caught global outrage overthe illegal use of these weapons. The most recent attack is theBrussels’ airport where a number of causalities have been recordedeither dead or injured. These are clear indicators that there is aneed to come up with international precautions against the use ofchemical or biological weapons by the terrorist organizations thathave caused global threat.
Inthis regard it is possible to estimate that there is a worldwideworry that such groups or setting may resolve to use these chemicaland biological weapons to cause global threat. The establishment ofthe Non-Proliferation treaty by the global community was therefore animportant step towards preventing the illegal use of such weapons incausing global terror (Tucker, 2000). However, there has been somerecorded setback in some states, especially t North Korea thatannounced its withdrawal from this treaty and later announced thepossession of these chemical and biological weapons. Such a violationand lack of commitment from some members cause it’s difficult towin the war against terror.
Inaddition around mid-19990s the public and the governments have overthe decades become increasingly concerned about the impending threatsby the secret use of biological weapons also known as BWs and thechemical weapons also known as CWs (Tucker, 2000). However, thatconcern, particularly in the use was transformed into a matter ofurgent requirement during the fall 2001 when the United States gotengulfed by anthrax attack (Payan, 2000). The requirement was simplyfor the governments to substantially prepare in responding terroristattack as it was the case dung that period. In this regard, thepreparedness of these governments could only be guaranteed by theavailability of both chemical and biological agents (Payan, 2000).Over the decades, these chemical and biological agents have beencategorized as weapons of mass destruction by global experts. Thereason behind this is that the chemical and biological weapons havethe potential of inflicting massive casualties in a definedgeographical area. Consequently, the CWs and the BWs have beenreferred to as Mass Casualty Weapons by global experts (Tucker,2000).
Dueto these global threats that have been caused by the possession anduse of CWs and BWs, the global communities established anonproliferation regime. In this particular regime, there is a systemof interlocking treaties, inspections, organizations and bothbilateral and unilateral arrangements that are all directed towardsending the spread of nuclear weapons, particularly the biological andchemical weapons (Tucker, 2000). There is a defined system that hasbeen put in place on each weapon as detailed in their centralagreements that clearly stipulates the norms for or against thepossession and use of these weapons. Therefore the member states havethe obligatory duty to comply with these international treaties. Themain reason is because the treaties were established to curb theincreasing threat of biological and chemical weapons (Tucker, 2000).
Despitethe possibility of the fact that some motives behind thesetechnological advancements have been legitimate in some areas ofstudy such as research and development, many terror groups areincreasingly using these technologies illegally (Tucker, 200). One ofthe most global debates currently is the war on terror andsubsequently the use of biological and chemical weapons. There is agreat need for the global community to set up precautions asexplained in the nonproliferation treaty in an effort of curbing thepossession, spread and use of these mass destructive weapons (Payan,2000). Over the decades, it is clear that the possession and use ofthese weapons has been evidenced by the global terror that theyinflict in the global scene.
Astechnology is advancing so are the social and political systemsworldwide. The people are increasingly becoming integrated into oneglobal community and therefore this eliminates the need for CWs andBWs in the modern society (Payan, 2000). The only agenda thatexplains the possession and use of these chemical and biologicalremains only to cause terror as opposed to advancement oftechnological research and development. Terrorism remains a globalproblem and there is a great need of research and developments intechnology to halt the actions of the various terror groups. Thisshould be done in addition to the advancement of policies to controlthe use of technology of biological and chemical weapons.
Payan,Gregory. (2000).Chemical and Biological Weapons: Anthrax and Sarin.New York. Routeledge.
TuckerB. Jonathan. (2000). Toxic:Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons.Cambridge. MITS Publishers. ..