Weapons of Mass Destruction
John Perry

27 March 2014

This week we’re thinking about the ethics of Weapons of Mass Destruction — a massive topic. But for once, at least we don’t have to search for a definition. It comes straight from a United Nations commission in 1947: Weapons of mass destruction “include atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapons developed in the future which have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above.”

That’s an interesting list, but I’m not sure it’s a definition. It’s not clear what nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons have in common. It can’t just be that they’re all horrible. Is it because they're more destructive than any others that we call them Weapons of Mass Destruction? In 1947 they weren’t; the atomic bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima -- each caused in the neighborhood of 75,000 deaths -- were actually less destructive than the conventional bombing raids on Tokyo or Dresden.

But it only took two atomic bombs to do all that damage, compared to thousands of bombs dropped on Dresden. Could that efficiency be morally relevant? Think of today’s hydrogen bombs -- they're so efficient at killing that one of them dropped at the order of a deranged megalomaniac could wipe out the entire population of New York City.

And where does that leave biological and chemical weapons? They’re not nearly as destructive, but they are efficient. That’s what makes them frightening, especially in an age of terrorism. A terrorist equipped with the right chemical or biological weapon could kill a lot more people than he could with a machine gun, or with a conventional bomb strapped to his waist.

But I’m still not convinced that the efficient killing of people makes a moral difference. Was it really worse for Assad to gas a thousand people in Syria rather than gun them down? It just seems there's something worse about WMDs that we haven’t quite put our finger on.

But while we’re struggling to find a moral difference between WMDs and conventional weapons, it’s important to realize how we got where we are. In 1947, when the US was the only nuclear power, we had an opportunity to rid the world forever of these weapons. And it is a moral tragedy that we failed to do so.

That said, it doesn’t do much good to keep living in the past. The genie is already out of the bottle, and the world is awash in these weapons. Today any would-be terrorist can google how to build a nuclear bomb; chemical weapons are everywhere; germ warfare is just around the corner. And of course we’re not alone in the nuclear club anymore -- there are now nine known nuclear powers. If you look at how we tiptoe around those nuclear powers, you’ve got to ask why any reasonable nation wouldn’t want to get their hands on some nuclear weapons.

That’s a frightening thought, one that makes it seem inevitable that some day these things are going to be used on a massive scale. Perhaps a conversation with our guest, Scott Sagan, will alleviate some of these fears.

Comments(8)

gee's picture

gee

Thursday, March 27, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

Does it matter what is used

Does it matter what is used to kill - aside from the pain fear or lasting damage done to the people and planet. A guy with a gun a fertilizer bomb a car or a plane really all the same if your the one who died. The problem with weapons of mass destruction is the power they give one individual or group over large amounts of people. We need to respect each others right to life. The act of killing another person is so extreme that it should not even be on the table. Sadam used the threat against Iran in order to be left alone but it ended up being an excuse to invade and kill him.

ashtonpeter's picture

ashtonpeter

Friday, March 28, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

It will be interesting to see

我们拭目以待最高法院的判决结果。在我看来，人们正在努力保持合理的界限。尽管如此，在公共场合枪支的问题应该始终以适当的谨慎对待。对枪支游说团体来说，开放枪支法律将会是一个真正的收获日，但公共安全必须永远是首要考虑的问题。记住，美国人确实有生存、自由和追求幸福的权利。公共安全使我们每个人都有可能做到这一点。Read more at: Gun Control Amendment

richarli's picture

richarli

Wednesday, April 9, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

Nuclear weapons are a

阅读雅各布·达尔文·汉布林的《武装大自然母亲》，了解更多关于核武器、化学武器和生物武器的历史。出于许多原因，核武器是一个人道主义问题。广岛和长崎的幸存者，尽管遭受了难以置信的苦难和障碍，还是要求民间社会禁止核武器，因为它们是如此的不人道。然而，问题不在于不同类型的武器有多可怕。问题是我们每个人采取什么行动来结束不公正和战争?我们欠那些因禁止核武器和所有战争而遭受苦难的人们的，参见icanw.org了解更多。禁止核武器是结束所有战争的合理步骤。今天的核武器比投在广岛和长崎的原子弹威力大数千倍。这也是一个人道主义问题，因为全世界至少有80%的核燃料链，包括开采、碾磨、生产、测试和储存核材料都发生在剩余的土著社区居住的地方。当我们讨论核武器和能源时，我们需要包括这些声音。 The money spent on nuclear weapons should be going to help people meet their needs worldwide and creating a just and sustainable world. Si se peude!

Dabrain88's picture

Dabrain88

Sunday, April 20, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

So others having WMD give us

所以其他国家拥有大规模杀伤性武器，我们就有借口也拥有大规模杀伤性武器?所以让其他国家把他们想要扔给我们的东西强加给他们，让我们变得伟大和高贵?两个错误不等于一个正确。我承认。我是一个和平主义者。我们之所以想拥有大规模杀伤性武器，只是出于对其他国家对我们的权力的恐惧。

Harold G. Neuman's picture

Harold G. Neuman

Friday, April 25, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

In my opinion, there is no

在我看来，不存在与大规模毁灭性武器的存在或防御有关的伦理。之前的评论似乎同意我的观点。至少部分如此。这都是漂亮的Slim Pickens(愿他安息)。我们的全球行为没有任何借口——只有与人类失败有关的原因:恐惧。当然，至少还有七种人类的失败——圣经中提到的那些“罪”——但正如前面所说，这些都与第八项有关。大约20年前，我和我哥哥有过一次讨论。他当时问我:人类最大的问题是什么?我想了一下，回答是:恐惧。他说他会考虑的。我们还没有重新讨论这个话题，但我希望我们很快就会这样做。 In any case, we are in deep do do. Pretty much. The notion of historionic effect just keeps coming back---again and again. Maybe it is more than a notion...hmmmm.
As always, and in all ways, Neuman.

Tim Smith's picture

Tim Smith

Thursday, May 1, 2014 -- 5:00 PM

This was quite the show. I

This was quite the show. I wish that I could have participated in the chat as I have several questions for Scott about what was an incredible history and still a prevalent and timely concern for the world at large.
通过聊天阅读…我看到斯科特提出了一个没有答案的问题。我直接关注了Scott，觉得为了社区的利益，我应该把它贴在这里。
Chat is here...
Scott's question was this...

Apr 4 2014, 12:13 PM
一个个人的故事:我曾经在五角大楼工作，正因为如此，我的书《移动目标》受到了审查，以达到保密的目的。当我写道，考虑到美国洲际弹道导弹弹头的威力，以及在苏联的军事基地与城市的共同位置，任何针对军事目标的大规模使用核武器仍然会杀死数百万无辜的苏联公民时，五角大楼的审查人员说，那份声明中有一个机密词。Can any of you guess which word they thought

Apr 4 2014, 12:14 PM
ScottSagan: Can any of you guess which word they thought was classified?

Apr 4 2014, 12:14 PM
ScottSagan: Think about that and I will tell the answer later.

Here is his reply when I pinged him to elucidate...

On Apr 11, 2014, at 6:46 PM, "Tim Smith" wrote:

What was the word the censors thought was classified?
Scott Sagan
Apr 11
to me, ssagan
Innocent.
Sent from my iPhone

If that doesn't sum up the scary times that we lived and are currently living I don't know what does.
Dr. Sagan pushed us all to read Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety by Eric Schlosser. I finished it a few weeks ago and let me concur that it is a worthy use of time. I'm trying to get a copy of Scott's book 'Limits of Safety' now but it's not that easy to come by (except on Amazon of course.)
我真的很想听斯科特谈谈克里米亚问题，以及美国使用和提议的遏制战略。美国对叙利亚问题缺乏回应似乎助长了俄罗斯的这种大胆。我特别想听听他的想法，如果乌克兰仍然拥有核武库，情况可能会有什么不同。
令人兴奋的节目…感谢。

Guest's picture

Guest

Sunday, December 7, 2014 -- 4:00 PM

I believe that in order to

我认为，为了防止大规模杀伤性武器及其相关材料向非国家行为体扩散，必须考虑在以下领域采取行动:改善现有库存的安全，更快和更有效地销毁相关库存，改善边境安全，并通过加强所有利益攸关方之间的沟通来跟踪可疑的运输。向低收入国家或资金不足的国际组织提供技术和财政援助可能是确保最大效率所必需的。

JohnnySawyers's picture

JohnnySawyers

Thursday, June 16, 2016 -- 5:00 PM

Almost every one will think

Almost every one will think that weapons of mass destruction are bombs, guns and such stuff. For me the worst weapons are media that destroy the cultures and take people towards negative things. Reading british essay writers on negative role of media you will realize that its the worst source of destruction of generations.