Weapons of Mass Destruction Threat

Weapons Of Mass Destruction Threat Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation Course Instruction Due Date Weapons Of Mass Destruction Threat Historical reference points in WMD (CBRNE) use as weapons The diplomatic origin of the term weapons of mass destruction was in December 1937. Specifically, the term is associated with William Cosmo Gordon Lang, an archbishop of Canterbury, when he stated: “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” (Carus, 2006). Although his use of the term was unclear, some scholars theorize that he was thinking of aerial bombardment and explosive weapons. What is conceived from this definition is that the history of CBRNE weapons is an expression of the darkest occurrence in human conflicts, especially the length and willingness to use non-conventional means to unleash horror on others. Hendrik (2017) elaborates on the use of weapons of mass destruction by noting that they have been used since ancient times, but the scale, sophistication, and lethality varied compared to their current use. Further research on the historical use of weapons of mass destruction leads back to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which was among the first international attempts to regulate the use of biological and chemical weapons (Jefferson, 2014). This meeting was a clear indication that the world was aware of the use of weapons of mass destruction and their potential harm. Regardless of the attempts to regulate the use of these weapons, the world has witnessed several CBRNEs being used in conflicts. For instance, during World War I, the use of chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, was widespread, and they caused horrific casualties. Their use of weapons of mass destruction was even more notorious during World War II. One of the historical incidents when weapons of mass destruction were used was the detonation of two atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 (Tomonaga, 2019). The lethality of this bombing was evident in that it killed around 200,000. Besides the casualties, the survivors developed illnesses, such as cancer and other radiation-related complications. In the modern-day world, the use of weapons of mass destruction has been more widespread, causing extreme casualties. For instance, the World Trade Center in New York was bombed in 1993, resulting in deaths and thousands of injuries (Caram, 2001). Another incident included the bombing of a Federal building in Oklahoma City by Alfred P. Murrah in 1995, killing over 100 people (Glenshaw et al., 2007). The bombings have also been experienced in other parts of the world, such as the 1998 detonation of bombs in East African countries, particularly the simultaneous bombing of American embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya (Muhula, 2016). The bombing in these countries resulted in hundreds of deaths and over 4,000 injuries. The September 11, 2001, bombing of the World Trade Center in Manhattan by the al-Qaeda group was another historical incident where weapons of mass destruction have been used. Notably, the continued use of weapons of mass destruction is worrying, considering that their complexity and proficiency have grown significantly (Croddy et al., 2005). For instance, there was the use of chemicals in the United States, which included the sending of letters containing ricin to federal security institutions, such as the Pentagon and the White House, in 2013, 2018, and 2020. Scholarly examination of such incidents reveals that the pervasive utilization of weapons of mass destruction is something that every nation needs to treat with a lot of seriousness (Mauri, 2022). The issue is more prevalent in developed countries since there have been reports of CBRNE weapons being used in nations such as the United States, Germany, Korea, and Syria. Based on the magnitude and extent of their use, most countries globally approach the use of these weapons as acts of terrorism, which is a grave and intricate security concern that is punished accordingly. Critical infrastructure and WMD use from a preparedness as well as mitigation perspective Critical infrastructures are a collection of networks and systems used by the government for effective functioning and guaranteeing the safety of citizens. What a country considers to be critical infrastructures may vary. However, regardless of the variation, Tekinerdogan et al. (2024) note that, in most cases, critical infrastructures include water, transportation, electricity, and health care. Thus, based on the significance of critical infrastructures to a county’s operations, they are more likely to be the targets of CBRNE attacks by terrorists. Since attacks on critical infrastructures will disrupt a county’s operations, it is vital that the government focuses on using WMD from a preparedness and mitigation point of view. Preparedness Benolli et al. (2020) assert that CBRNE presents a serious risk to the general integrity of critical infrastructures. Therefore, preparedness is necessary, considering that attacks on these sectors have far-reaching impacts, including an economic downturn, societal disorder, and fatalities. For guaranteed preparedness, governments must adopt readiness measures in light of this to guarantee that vital facilities are shielded from potential threats. The specific approaches focus on security, deterrence, and law enforcement since their prioritization is vital in readiness. The White House Washington (1998) affirms this by theorizing that creating contingencies, such as establishing Presidential Decision Directive 63, is a guideline against disruptions that may harm the general public’s safety and health. The specifics of this approach include developing a solid and adaptable infrastructure protection program that entails close cooperation between state and municipal administrations. Further, preparedness strategies may include identifying risky locations and engaging emergency response to possible WMD attacks. Mitigation Weapons of mass destruction can also be used for mitigation purposes. In this case, scholars argue that being prepared and developing reactionary measures are not enough to prevent the lethality of weapons of mass destruction. As such, precautionary measures must be embraced to prevent further risks and effects of CBRNE attacks (Cilluffo et al., 2001). A close examination of the weapons of mass destruction shows that they all share a commonality of ease of transport and being used to attack large crowds. The commonality between them means that mitigation strategies should focus on addressing the ease of accessibility, transportation, and being used to attack huge crowds. The primary goal in such a case would be to create legislation that will reduce easy access, purchasing, and transportation of CBRNE agents. However, for this approach to be effective, there is a need for multi-agency cooperation between local law enforcers and federal law enforcement. Chemical Weapons Brief Overview Chemical weapons of mass destruction are characterized by being highly toxic. Some new agents may include VX and older ones, such as mustard gas (Gosden & Gardener, 2005). Besides their toxicity, chemical agents are known to cause choking, irritation, vesicating and blistering, respiratory complications, nerve paralysis, and loss of blood. Chlorine, diphosgene, and phosgene are associated with causing irritation, choking, and respiratory distress. Mustard and lewisite cause vesicating and blistering. Sarin, tabun, VX, and cyclohexyl cause paralysis of the nerve. Lastly, anticholinergic compounds cause loss of blood.  Common Agents/Weapons The common chemical agents of mass destruction can be classified into two groups, which include those produced locally for commercial use and are weaponized by terrorists and those that are specifically manufactured by the military as weapons. For example, chlorine gas and hydrogen cyanide are common chemicals but can be used in their simplest forms as weapons by terrorist groups. On the other hand, chemicals, such as mustard, can be used with other vesicants as chemical weapons. Most Common Chemical Delivery Systems Chemical weapons may be delivered differently based on what is targeted. One of the common modes of delivery is explosives, which involve being contained in highly pressurized containers that explode when exposed to heat (Majumdar, 2017). Another means of delivery is as poisonous or toxic substances. In that case, non-gaseous chemicals can be used as gases for inhalation or as chemicals that can be added to foods or drinks. Lethality and Other Pertinent Facts The lethality of chemical weapons is undeniable, more so because their effects on the health of victims depend on which chemical agent was used, its concentration, how it enters the body, and the time it stays inside a victim’s body. However, scholars note that the symptoms of chemical attacks may be confusing, considering they may be confused with other illnesses (Gosden & Gardener, 2005). Therefore, in determining if a chemical agent has been detonated, there is the need to focus on if various people in the same area are experiencing similar symptoms. Additionally, the duration of a chemical in the body may cause instantaneous effects or take longer periods before symptoms occur. Impact, Likelihood by Probability, and Impact The impact of chemical weapons is devastating since their damage may be apparent almost immediately or take some time before the symptoms appear. For example, when mustard agent is used, it causes severe damage to the eyes, skin, and the respiratory tract, and the skin blisters and corneal effects may appear in minutes or hours. For example, an attack in Halabja using chemical agents caused roughly 5000 deaths in a town inhabited by over 800,000 people (Gosden & Gardener, 2005). Those who did not die from carcinogen attacks sustained long-term illnesses. The probability of using chemicals as weapons of mass destruction is undeniable, considering that some chemicals are readily available and can be weaponized for use by terrorists. Biological Weapons Brief Overview The use of biological agents as weapons of mass destruction involves the use of various biological toxins, which may resemble chemical agents. According to Gosden and Gardener (2005), biological agents of mass dest...