For this blog post I’ve decided to
respond to the class reading we had for discussion the week of October 20th.
The tittle is “Words of Mass Destruction in the Syria Debate”. I would like to
discuss about chemical weapons and how realism is at the root of politicians’
decision, even though they might lead their state with liberal beliefs.
Ever
since the Cold War everyone has been scared and worried about chemical weapons.
Everyone should be scared and concerned about chemical weapons. We don’t need
to search for “atomic bomb consequences’ on Google images to be reminded of
what chemical weapons do when they are used. The vivid print of the pictures
will forever be carved into my memories and I am sure I am not along on this
one. However, I do agree with the
writer, or author of the post? Why is it that conventional weapons such as
guns, and bombs are not considered serious or as serious as chemical weapons
anymore? Why is it that whenever we hear ‘ they have weapons of mass
destruction”, there is a panic? Yet, in countries like Syria, kids walk around
with guns and grenades, as if they were holding Tonka trucks and lollipops.
I agree with the idea of traditional
weapons holding a criteria objective; in this case, we can see the damage that
guns, grenades and other weapons considered to be traditional, have when they
are used. Meanwhile, chemical weapons or weapons of mass destruction are at
another level of perspective, the objective one. For me chemical weapons are
held on an objective view because we do not really know the potential or extend
of the power. We technically objectively do, unless the use of biological
weapons is used, then we probably don’t know the measure of the damages or the
toll that weapons would do.
Untimely, I think it boils down to power;
who has the most power? Who is the most powerful? Who has the most chemical
weapons? Like I mentioned before since the
Cold War the US has struggled to be the one in charge of the world and
act as a mediator and world police. The struggle for power is a relists believe
that I am pretty sure every country aims to follow whether democrat or
otherwise. How far does power go? And why will not use it to end issues such as
the one in Syria, China and Ukraine?
All that power is just wasted on self
image and portraying an ideal of what it means to be powerful.
Daniela,
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that "chemical weapons are held on an objective view because we do not really know the potential or extend of the power." However, I disagree. I think we do know the potential power that these weapons have which is exactly why states try to avoid using them, and if they do begin using these chemical weapons, or threaten to start using them, other states are more likely to intervene. Dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki during WWII, for example, proves just how dangerous chemical weapons/ WMADs really are. Up to this day, people are still dealing with the consequences that the atomic bombs caused.
oh, i agree with you, i was using the reading for last Friday's discussion section. Walsh, mentioned this objectivity of WMDs.
DeleteIt is definitely true that "weapons of mass destruction" incite a higher degree of fear and panic due to the extent of damage that they can cause. However, I don't think that that negates the power of "traditional" weapons such as guns and bombs. The accumulation of such weapons significantly increases the strength of a state's military, and consequently, contributes to the amount of power that a state has. Therefore, I feel that states must consider conventional weapons with the same degree of concern that they have for WMDs.
ReplyDeletei couldn't free with you a weapon aid weapon whether it is a WMD or a conventional weapon.
DeleteIt is an interesting puzzle to think about: why should we care more about the destructive potential of some weapons? For example, the firebombing of Japanese cities during WWII caused many more deaths than the atomic bomb. My guess is that there is probably a normative and a material dimension to this. One the one hand some weapons seem "worse" than other and so some groups of actors try to ban them on moral grounds. And on the other hand, powerful states like the US don't really want some states having WMD because they are powerful.
ReplyDelete