Bioterrorism and weapons of mass destruction (WMD) Free Essay Example

Biological and chemical weapons and their uses are receiving а great deal of media attention. Attaining or making these WMD takes some level of expertise. Relatively few places in the world (approximately 17 states) have the people with the skills necessary to develop а biological weapon or possess the radioactive material necessary to develop а nuclear weapon. Although opportunities appear limited and results unpredictable, chemical and biological materials should not be overlooked.

А report by the CSIS in 2ooo, referring to biological agents such as anthrax and plague, noted that “ounce for ounce, the lethality of these agents is many times that of chemical agents or nuclear weapons.

” (Rick 2004 78) There are five general categories of WMD that can be used by analysts tracking materials and investigative leads: 1. Biological 2. Chemical 3. Explosive 4. Incendiary 5. Nuclear WMD that fall into these categories come in many deadly forms and devices, In the U. S. , Title 18 of the U.S.

Code covers the legislative description for many of the destructive devices used as WMD.

А synopsis of what Title 18 encompasses is listed below. • Poison gas • Any weapon involving а disease organism • Any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at а level dangerous to human life • Any destructive device as defined in Section 921 of this Title The destructive devices as defined in Section 921 of Title 18 U. S. C. are as follows: • Any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas:

• Bomb • Grenade • Rocket having а propellant charge of more than four ounces • Missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce • Mine • Device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses • Any type of weapon (other than а shotgun or а shotgun shell) which may be readily converted to expel а projectile…with а bore of more than one-half inch in diameter • Any combination of parts…from which а destructive device can be assembled.

“Ideas, as well as “reality,” were able to come fully into play. For the first time in two centuries, history offered international actors а relatively blank sheet of paper on which to write the outlines of а new world order. It also seemed to offer а reasonable breathing space during which to draft that blueprint. And yet, as а recent collected volume has demonstrated, 1 most European government initially responded neither rationally (as some insist they do) nor constructively (as others suggest they can).

Instead, the picture was, at least until 1997, at best one of “disjointed instrumentalism,” at worst one of dithering, drift, and perceived impotence. Michael Howard, pondering the thirty-year-long stranglehold of Cold War ideas, noted in his Alastair Buchan lecture to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in March 1990: “We became indeed so accustomed to the prison that history had built for us that, like recidivists or long-term hospital patients, we became almost incapable of visualizing any other kind of existence. No other world, it seemed, could exist.

” Yet this was the first major shift in the geology of international relations since the establishment of the discipline itself. Research institutes and think tanks existed in all European countries. Ideas abounded, and policy papers tumbled off the printers in а never ending stream. New thinking and new ideas eventually played а vital role in the shift toward new policy preferences and even а new policy paradigm. The role of legitimating discourse is more complex. In some countries it worked, in others it did not. ” (Alexander et al 2003 37).

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get a custom paper by one of our expert writers.

Get your custom essay

Helping students since 2015