Weapons of Mass Destruction Question?

Question

Why is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction seen as a partticularly dangerous increase in the threat of terrorism?

Answer 1

During the 'cold war' the United States and the Soviet Union were in a state known as mutually assured destruction (MAD). This insured that if one was to use a nuclear weapon the response would in all probability insure total destruction of both. If a WMD were to get into the hands of some 'stateless' terrorist organization who has individuals willing to sacrifice themselves then there is no longer any deterrent, nothing to retaliate against. You hear about the homicidal / suicidal car bombings that kill dozens, imagine what would happen if a small man portable nuclear device that could fit into a suitcase were set off in a major city. Your talking thousands, tens of thousands killed. Do we remember the nerve gas attacks on the Japanese subway? We escaped a major catastrophe.

Answer 2

No one other than a few could set of an atomic bomb, fewer have a delivery system,and that is what we are talking about, The rest mean damn little!

Al Qaeda would like nothing more than to set off an atomic device in the US, and our attitude and the way we treat people are the main reasons.

Hopefully the won't! We have enough nukes in 1 sub to wipe out places like Iran. but countries are not threats to us. N. Korea isn't even a threat. I have never seen so many people pee there pants over the Bogey man that never existed. Grow up!

If someone gets hold of a nuclear device it will probably come from Russian, Pakistan or perhaps Poland, where we have been putting nukes. We are so afraid of a country that doesn't have enough uranium to operate a power plant. I just don't get it. A nuke is not going to come from Iran! Then the other issue is how are they going to deliver it? They are not very small, and damn hard to hide!

Answer 3

This is such a touchy issue you might think to define what you mean by Weapons of Mass Destruction. Even leaders of nations may be considered WMD, imo. Back in the day many Americans thought it funny to turn Iran into a parking lot for Wal Mart. Restraint has not always been a hallmark of American foreign policy, or internal policy for that matter. But it seems to me that this great nation has always tried to be better. Better than what? you might well ask. Better than before i answer.

Answer 4

in lots of situations a weapon which will kill hundreds or possibly hundreds. So themes like nuclear warheads and poisonous brokers like nerve gas, poison gases etc. those weapons could desire to be presented by utilising airplane or missiles and don't could prefer to inevitably be an instant hit to reason deaths. easily a weapon designed to reason large deaths or harm with one launch and probable solid effects. well-known bombs and such could reason hundreds of deaths besides the shown fact that the area of impact is in lots of circumstances extremely small the area as WMD usually could conceal a lots bigger area. So a typical bomb could conceal countless undred ft a WMD could conceal countless miles (or possibly an entire city).

Answer 5

The WMD's in question are not large, radioactive bombs... they are formulas that can be transported on a thumb drive, erased with the push of a button. The formulas for chemical warfare. Anyone can pass it to anyone with little threat of discovery.

Answer 6

It may be "stupid" but it's called deterence. The idea is we got them so you can't use them. And if you want to use your 1, just remember we can lob 10x that many back your way. So think about what you really want to do.
It works but you can only account for so many, since alot of them have been "lost" since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Answer 7

It makes it more likely that terrorists could get hold of some, and use such in a particularly unpleasant manner.

Answer 8

the most insane thing on this planet is too let the only country that has used nuclear bombs and chemical weapons in a war be in charge of the most of the weapons. that is just plain stupid.

Answer 9

??