Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weapons of Mass Arocities

Custom User Avatar
More by this author
As the bright, early sun rises in the midst of summer, thousands of people begin their daily routine through the streets of a hustling city. Busied by the rush of delivery carts, the traffic of pedestrians migrate street to street, intersection to intersection. While news of the relentless air raids in Tokyo and other cities across Japan linger with each step they take, the civilians continue on, but keeping the nearest bomb shelter in mind. However, no one could have prepared for, or even imagined, what happens next: an unearthly white flash, followed by complete annihilation. It was 8:15 AM, August 6, 1945, when the “Little Boy” atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, killing eighty-thousand people. Although lucky individuals were instantly wiped out, having their only existence, a blackened shadow, outlined on the ground, many others had to suffer through severe, blistering pain, radiation poisoning, or cancer, until the atomic bomb finally consumed them. Causing extreme widespread suffering and crippling, long lasting effects, weapons of mass destruction, biological, chemical, and nuclear warfare, greatly contrasts other weapons through sheer severity. In no standards is the use of weapons of mass destruction justified because it should be considered as a war crime and a crime mad enough to destroy the world.


A war crime is an act that conflicts the international humanitarian law, a law amid to protect civilians and soldiers from inhumane treatment during war. Weapons of mass destruction fit the description of inhumane as they, able to demoralize large populations, cause great numbers of casualties and long-term human suffering. Causing the “mass destruction” intergraded in their names, these weapons have the ability to erase tens of thousands of people from the Earth unlike weapons used in the past. Before the creation of the nuclear bomb, warfare needed clear, strategic planning, requiring thought for who is at risk; small-scale bombings were difficult to defeat the enemy but killed less people. With the use of nuclear warfare, large masses of people are killed with too little effort. This inhumane idea of how mass killings can end war cheapens the value of human life because, with just one single atomic bomb, millions can be very efficiently murdered. Furthermore, the long-term effects of these weapons are prevalent in contrast to conventional warfare. Nuclear bombs can cause suffering way after it initial blast because its radiation, penetrating the bodies the mothers and fathers, can cause defects generations on and it has harmful components, like uranium, that last in the environment. Biological warfare, nevertheless, has the same destructive powers, because it is hard to contain and be stopped; once infected, a population can carry the disease even after the war is over. While other weapons can also cause immense suffering, their physical effects do not last through generations. Through its pure intent to cause death to whomever, including citizens of future generations, the use of weapons of mass destruction is a crime that breaks the laws of humanity.


Not just breaking humanitarian laws, weapons of mass destruction, nuclear warfare in particular, can cause the destruction of the world, several times over. After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, countries around the world have competed in an arms race, developing nuclear bombs, some estimated to be forty times more powerful

than the ones used on Japan, to protect themselves. To justify only one nuclear attack, is to justify the end of the world because of the nuclear responses and death to civilization. Far from the ideology that started the nuclear arms race, the belief that once the U.S. had nuclear weapons, other nations will obey its commands, or threats, and maintain world peace, the access of different countries to these weapons defeated its initial intention. The response of one country, when another has bombed it with nuclear missiles, is to fire back. Now because of the destructive powers of these weapons, both countries will have millions dead, never minding the consequences of ally countries joining in the nuclear battle. Rogue nations, on the other hand, are not monitored and therefore, whether they have weapons of mass destruction is a mystery, and so is the count of nuclear weapons in the world. Additionally, in a nonphysical sense, using weapons of mass destruction ends the civilization humans have been working towards throughout history. The protection of human rights is destroyed with the use of these weapons since their sole purpose is to kill anyone. More so, the movement from barbaric warfare towards a more humane act of protection and peace making is contradicted by only advancing technologically, not humanely, with weapons. Due to the accumulation of nuclear weapons in the world, the use of extremely destructive warfare can lead to the death of the world and civilization.


Slaughtering all in its pass with powers beyond control, weapons of mass destruction cannot be justified. It is a war crime able to wipe out the entire world and it takes away the civilized, humane aspect of human developed, leaving room only for cold, and accumulation of advanced weaponry. Having these weapons in nations is reasoned by a myth, a theory that believes once every country in the world has a weapon of mass destruction, no one would be reckless enough to use them, considering the nuclear response, and hence, retaining world peace. The opposite is true and hold far less of a risk if a rogue nation decides to attack another nation or if one is used accidentally. No weapons of mass destruction means no ability of fire one. With a final thought, using weapons of mass destruction is not reasonable, but having them is a risk equally unjustified.





Join the Discussion

This article has 1 comment. Post your own now!

IntrepidRose This work has been published in the Teen Ink monthly print magazine. said...
Nov. 30, 2011 at 1:00 pm

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could eliminate the use and existence of these weapons all together? What if we could eliminate the need for countries to even have any weapons? (I guess that's probably impossible)

 

Great piece you've got here. As a side note, it's nice to see a fellow Canadian. I'm from Ontario and I hope to see Vancouver some day. We should all make an effort to be every corner of our country. That includes Quebec, especially Quebec.

 
bRealTime banner ad on the left side
Site Feedback