Weapons of Mass Destruction (Essay Sample)

Weapons of Mass Destruction
Name of student
Institutional affiliation
Abstract
This paper explores the consequences of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) around the world, and the various factors that contribute to the same. Specifically, focus is made on the 1945 bombing of Japanese cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, by the Americans using atomic bombs. It was a fateful event, which saw thousands of people lose their lives and others remain maimed for life. Atomic bombs, as part of the wider collection of mass destruction, are dangerous to life on earth. Weapons of mass destruction generally refer to chemical, radiological, biological or any other weapon that could bring a great deal of harm to human beings, artificial and natural structures in the case that it explodes.
Introduction
With a fast growing population and diversity, the world is quickly experiencing significant changes in the way things are done. This happens in a bid to cope with the changing environments of operation. As world population rises, so does the complexity within it. Each individual human being possesses his or her own opinion, feelings, emotions and fears. No one is the same as the other person, each individual is unique. It is such uniqueness that brings around the diversity that is witnessed every day. Diversity within the human population is a good and a positive thing to the world. It brings around the thrill and completeness of life. Diversity can be recognized in the various kinds of inventions and innovations that punctuate peoples' daily lives. It is through diversity that, as one person thinks of inventing a computer, the other person would be interested in making a very fast jet, and so on.
However, diversity can be negative, either in a small or in a big way. Owing to the differences in preferences, views and opinions between individuals, each person fights to have his or her way, or to satisfy their own desires. The theory of determination states that intrinsic needs serve as the greatest motivating force that will get an individual to do just anything in a bid to satisfy inner desires. This fact narrows down to the source of conflicts between individuals. Conflicts and disagreements arise in the case where opinions clash, and each party wants to have its way. In most cases, each party believes that their method is the best, and the only way out of a situation. In other cases, it is a matter of personal feelings towards another party or an idea. Some people will primarily come up against the other's suggestions not because they are in error, but for the reason that they want to frustrate that particular person or party. All in all, all situations lead to clashes. Each party devices methods to use in suppressing the other party and having its way. Greed is also a significant player in these situations. When people want more than they peacefully get, they will use force to acquire the same. Weapons of mass destruction come in handy as a huge support to such endeavors. In general, weapons of mass destruction are not really developed for defense purposes only, but they are also meant to forcefully acquire power and influence over others. Leaders of countries which manufacture such lethal weapons mostly have the intention of using them to maintain their place in the corridors of power.
Historical development
The first chemical weapons were put into wide use during the First World War. At that time, the west was yet to develop nuclear weapons, and Japan was hard at work trying to develop biological weapons. As such, these weapons were basically being used without any control. The main aim of them being put into use was to strike the opponent as hard as possible, as well as creating fear among people. Most leaders ended up giving in to war opponents once their people were struck with these weapons. The first weapon of mass destruction that is on record dates back to 1937, and was used in the current day Spain Cosmo Lang. The whole idea of having war with such weapons is sickening. The people affected most here are the normal innocent citizens. The first nuclear weapon was used by the United States of America towards the end of the Second World War. They bombed the two Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. During the First World War, Japan had emerged as a world super power, and hence its cities had been advanced to a great extent. The implication here is that there were so many people living in these two cities, just like it is the situation in modern day cities. Many people suffered at that time, and many more lost their lives. It actually forced the Japanese government to bow down to the United States and bring an end to the hard fought war. The effects of that bombing were felt for a long time after the war in Japan.
At the moment, weapons of mass destruction have taken a new direction. The types of items manufactured have taken to a great variety, which include chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons. Such weapons have practically proliferated over the last couple of years. This has been made possible by the high levels of technology that have taken over the world. Technology enables most countries and scientists to refine minerals like platinum that are highly valuable in making such weapons.
Bombing on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
It is almost seventy years now since the events of August 1945, the time when the United States dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This was during the Second World War. Before the bombing, the Soviet Union had declared war on Japan. A closer analysis of the situation shows that the United States was indeed justified to drop the bombs and avoid further war and bloodshed. The bombing was supposed to force the Japanese government to surrender to the United States, and not destroy the country. a move by the Japanese government to surrender was crucial at the time, since the war was not about to end soon. There would have been more death and suffering had the bombs not been dropped. This was because of the looming attack by the Soviet Union. Maybe the destruction that could have followed would have been worse than the one caused by the two bombings.
A lot of questions have arisen regarding the United States' decision to drop two atomic bombs on Japanese cities. Definitely, many interpretations can be made out of the same issue, which again narrows down to the personal character and diversity in views of various individuals. Some people think that bombing of the two cities was done to intimidate the Soviet Union. It may be true on one hand, but then the two countries were fighting on the same side. Someone may also wonder what made the United States bomb two cities instead of one, if its intention, as it claims, was to make Tokyo surrender and end the war. More destruction and loss was achieved in bombing the two cities. The outcome may have been different if only one city was bombed. A smaller number of people could have lost their lives, something that could have made the Japanese government hesitant to surrender. The result achieved by bombing the two cities was one that had been anticipated, and Tokyo did no waste time in resigning from the war.
There are possibilities that do exist in this case. The fact that the Soviet Union had declared war against Japan could have been enough to make the government surrender. A closer analysis into this assumption, though, gives no basis at all. During that period, war meant prestige and popularity among countries. It was the only way a country could gain power or maintain it. As a matter of fact, power is addictive and desirable by many. Those who have tasted power would give up everything just to maintain this power or gain more of it. In this case, Japan had emerged as a superpower during the First World War. It had therefore been through the experience of being on top of the world for a significant length of time. The possibility that the Japanese government could just have surrendered to the threatening Soviet Union is very slim. No superpower could just have surrendered without putting up a fight first. A leader would have it that there is no harm to trying. This is in the sense that he or she would be using soldiers as the weapon to confront the enemy. An outright surrender would lead to intimidation and shame, something that would not be anticipated by any powerful leader, and the Japan government was powerful and influential at the time. The atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki left no option to Tokyo but to surrender and avoid further losses. It was a wise move that saw the Second World War come to an abrupt end.
There is the issue about whether there were any viable options that could have been taken instead of bombing the two cities. The fact of the matter is, alternatives always exist, but the issue here is how effective they would be in bringing a world war to an end. The underlying fact here is that each and every individual politician on the planet would like to emerge victorious in any competition. It is an intrinsic factor that, coupled with nationalism and patriotism, gave many countries around the world the motivation to fight. One of the alternatives to that could have chosen over the nuclear bombing would have been an open dialogue. Evaluating the situation at the time, this would have been a hard task to pursue. The hardest thing in an open dialogue during times of conflict is bringing the conflicting parties together. There is a general atmosphere of lack of trust among parties, in which case much has to be done to convince each other that there is no foul play. The dialogue process would also have been chaotic, as each side fights to gain the most of the outcome. Primarily, dialogue would have been an almost impossible undertaking to consider. Another obvious alternative would have been leaving the situation to take its own course. The ef...