So, what's so bad about WMDs? If defined, as per usual, as nuclear, biological, chemical or radiological, they are unethical on at least six counts:
- their manufacturing and testing may lead, and have led, to adverse health and environmental impacts;
- these impacts may continue long after testing ceases;
- their wartime use is not sufficiently constrained as to prevent civillian casualties;
- they may cause undue suffering among the victims;
- their effects may be long-lasting, and thus increasingly and indiscriminantly destructive;
- their intrinsic goal is to cause destruction rather than merely subdue the enemy.
Another facet of this problem is the definition in and of itself.
Should the concept of WMD be extended? What of MOAB or low-yield nuclear bunker busters? Is depleted uranium a radiological device? Why make a distinction between individual and multiple weapons that achieve the same ends? And if the ends are the basis of the decision, why stick to standard military weapons and not include such devices as sanctions or biased economic policy? While some of these may seem far fetched, they still need to be debated.
Links to sites addressing health and environmental impacts:
|
