The Morality of Weapons of Mass Destruction

The morality of weapons of mass destruction is, in many ways, inconclusive. Some believe that the productions of these evil makings are beneficial. Others believe the opposite. I am one of the others. Divergent party believers deem that these malicious weapons are necessary to our nation's safe keeping and problem solving. It is not obligatory. Our nation as a whole does not need to be violent and such. We, the United States of America are more than that! We do not need to "solve" problems, being rash and superficial beings. Weapons of mass destruction are immoral and unnecessary for the supposed safety of our nation. This is elucidated and emphasized through the perils WMDs pose, the relationships with other countries they destroy, and their physical and mental costs.

Weapons of mass destruction are much too much of a hazard to be used. There are so many kinds of WMDs that can cause immeasurable chaos. A very dangerous example of a weapon of mass destruction is bioterrorism. At first glance it doesn't seem to be that harmful, but if used for improper motives: destruction can be at its immensity. For example; "[S]mall pox- a disease that killed more than 300 million people in the 20th century... of America" (Bioterrorism). Though small pox is largely "eradicated" now; it still remains out and about. People can and are still being affected by it. So if a country that is against the US decides to attack our nation with the use of biological weapons, such as a disease, our country would be practically over with. Science may be able to cure the disease over some time, but regardless the disease would still live on just as small pox does. Thus, as a nation, we could prevent this by not even holding or creating weapons of mass destruction. For some odd reason, countries assume that attacking another country that holds WMDs is a good idea to secure their own nation. Since we have WMDs, other countries also might find it constructive to attack us; just as our nation did, not as a whole, when we invaded Iraq. One soldier writes; "I had a lot of dreams... But cluster sub munitions destroyed all of my dreams and put me in a wheel chair" (Cook). This shows that not only are WMDs hazardous in physical ways, but also mental ways. An accident of getting your legs blown off or something similar would not necessarily make you any more sane, nor make you achieve more. When dreams are destroyed; futures even remotely near will no longer be able to be produced. If the use of WMDs goes on, many people and youth will end up under-motivated. With under-motivated people, and youth, there is essentially no future. Especially seeing how already many of the youth today do not try as hard as they really should for their futures. The USA needs to prevent this from happening at all costs for the future of our nation.

The creation and continuing production of weapons of mass destruction causes uncountable problems for us. We are, and already have, gone to war for our country's security. Because of these rash and impractical acts of waging war, other relationships with the United States of America will never be the same. With our economy already doing so gravely, how would it restore any if we have such bad relationships with other countries that we induce trade with? "[Former President] Bush in his State of the Union speech claimed Iran as part of an 'axis of evil.' From that moment onward, there was hardly anything positive to build bridges between the two countries" (Siddiqui). As bad as our economy is; our country should be trying to build bridges with other countries rather than breaking them down. For no reason does it make any logical sense to attack other countries we need to have good amity with. As Hutton writes; "It is better to prevent a war than have to go fight one" (Hutton). What Hutton says is true. It really is better to prevent a war than fight one, for the United States at least, because the quantity of ways we can prevent war is immense. Instead we, being idiots, decide to make our lives even more difficult by basically setting ourselves up for war. We claim that attacking other countries with WMDs will do us good, but if we think so; won't they as