International relations > Contemporary War and Conflict > Weapons
Daniel Halliday
Aug 9 · Last update 9 days ago.
If chemical weapons are banned by international law, why aren’t nuclear bombs?
Chemical weapons, biological weapons, landmines, and cluster munitions are all illegal under international law. As a similar weapon of mass destruction why are nuclear weapons any different?
Stats of Viewpoints
They are all weapons of mass destruction, they should all be banned
0 agrees
0 disagrees
The argument over weapons that aren’t being used is distracting people from the ones that are
0 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint
They are all weapons of mass destruction, they should all be banned

The devastation weapons of mass destruction can cause is unparalleled, the suffering they can cause is fair beyond any other weapon and is far less controllable. The chances of them harming civilians, amounting to a war crime anyway, is very high, they all need to be legislated against accordingly. To argue that nuclear weapons maintain peace or stability in any way is both pessimistic and short sighted.

Agree
Disagree
The argument over weapons that aren’t being used is distracting people from the ones that are

The scale and suffering caused by conventional weapons can be worse than nuclear weapons (e.g. Tokyo, Dresden). The biggest mass murders in history have been usually committed with conventional weapons. The problem is not simply the weapons but the intent to use them. More should be done to make parties accountable for murderous acts, especially against civilians. Concentrating on the potential for suffering at the hands of nuclear weapons is distracting from the suffering that is currently underway.

Agree
Disagree
Translate