Daniel Halliday
Aug 9 · Last update 2 mo. 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
The argument over weapons that aren’t being used is distracting people from the ones that are
0 agrees
0 disagrees
They are all weapons of mass destruction, they should all be banned
1 agrees
0 disagrees
Viewpoints
Add New Viewpoint
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. Wieluń, Tokyo, Somalia bombing of Isaaq). The biggest mass murders in history tend to have be committed using 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 still wide spread around the world.

Genocides are a grim example of how destructive a murderous campaign can be even without conventional weapons. During the Cambodian genocide bullets were seen as too expensive to use on civilians, so farming tools and other unconventional methods were used to torture and execute a third of the Cambodian population. So this is not limited to aerial bombing, given the intent conventional and non-conventional weapons can be, and have been, much more destructive.

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Aug 27
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Genocides are a grim example of how destructive a murderous campaign can be even without conventional weapons. During the Cambodian genocide bullets were seen as too expensive to use on civilians, so farming tools and other unconventional methods were used to torture and execute a third of the Cambodian population. So this is not limited to aerial bombing, given the intent conventional and non-conventional weapons can be, and have been, much more destructive.
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.

Chemical weapons are the perfect example, many companies and countries harbour chemicals and agents that could be used to manufacture chemical or biological weapons. However there legality allows precursors to be utilised in the name of science and research while weaponisation is minimised. The same could be true of nuclear weapons, a ban on nuclear weapons of mass destruction does not have to affect nuclear technology being used peacefully. In the same way chemical and biological technology is regulated and research and peaceful use still legally coexists.

Agree
Disagree
Latest conversation
Daniel Halliday
Aug 23
Approved
DH edited this paragraph
Chemical weapons are the perfect example, many companies and countries harbour chemicals and agents that could be used to manufacture chemical or biological weapons. However there legality allows precursors to be utilised in the name of science and research while weaponisation is minimised. The same could be true of nuclear weapons, a ban on nuclear weapons of mass destruction does not have to affect nuclear technology being used peacefully. In the same way chemical and biological technology is regulated and research and peaceful use still legally coexists.
Translate