International Relations: An Analysis of WMD and International Security

This report delves into the complex issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) within the framework of international relations. It begins by defining WMDs, encompassing nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons, and highlights the devastating consequences of their use. The report traces the historical development of these weapons, from early bomber aircraft to the atomic bombs of the Cold War era. It examines the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), its successes, and its challenges, including the actions of states like North Korea and Iran. Furthermore, the report explores biological and chemical weapons, including the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), analyzing their impact on global security. The report emphasizes the importance of these treaties in controlling and preventing the spread of WMDs, while also acknowledging the ongoing threats posed by these weapons in the modern world.

Running Head: International Relations
International Relations
System04128
[Pick the date]

International Relations
Table of Contents
Weapon of Mass Destruction.....................................................................................................2
Development of Weapons of Mass Destructions.......................................................................2
Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty.........................................................3
Biological Weapons and Biological Weapons Convention of 1972..........................................5
Chemical Weapons and Chemical Weapons Convention..........................................................6
Realist Theory............................................................................................................................7
Realist theory and Weapons of Mass destruction......................................................................7
Bibliography...............................................................................................................................8
1 | P a g e

International Relations
Weapons must not hurt regular citizens through unpredictable impacts. They should not be of
a nature to make pointless damage or superfluous enduring warriors. Weapons of mass
demolition do not agree to these standards. The human enduring they make is not average and
the philanthropic outcomes are not adequate (ICRC, 2015). The apparent danger from
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has turned out to be a standout amongst the most
significant issues on international strategy and national security motivation. The WMD
danger has, for instance, significantly affected the Bush organization's national security and
country security techniques. For the United States and similarly invested partners, Iraq's
supposed ownership of WMD has turned into a casus belli. The ascent to noticeable quality
of the WMD risk brings up issues about the job of worldwide law concerning WMD in this
new condition.
Weapon of Mass Destruction
Weapon of mass annihilation (WMD), instruments with the ability to perpetrate passing and
demolition on such huge scale thus aimlessly that its very nearness in the hands of a
threatening force can be viewed as a deplorable risk. Present day weapons of mass
pulverization are either atomic, organic, or concoction weapons—much of the time alluded to
overall as NBC weapons (WMD, 2019). Weapons of mass destructions incorporate
chemical, biological, nuclear and instruments. In some cases, radiological weapons can be
incorporated into these weapons. Overall, this definition is pursued on the grounds that there
the particular universal administrative does not give appropriate definition. The fundamental
reason not to have explicit meaning of weapon of mass demolition in light of the fact that
each nation addresses diversely the parts of weapons of mass annihilation as indicated by
their neighbourhood law. General standards in global law routine like universal
compassionate law are likewise material to weapons of mass demolition yet these standards
were not set up explicitly to address weapons of mass obliterations (Anderson & Moodie,
2017).
Development of Weapons of Mass Destructions
The term weapons of mass annihilation are operating since at any rate 1937, when it was used
to show huge preparation of bomber aircraft. Around then these flying warships of air seems
to show a relentless risk to non-military personnel concentration situated a long way from any
war area as without a doubt they did during World War II, remarkably in the fire bombings of
2 | P a g e

International Relations
such urban communities as Hamburg, Germany, and Tokyo, Japan, when a huge number of
regular folks kicked the bucket in a solitary night. With the putting of the nuclear bomb on
Hiroshima, Japan, the fearsome intensity of traditional bombs withered before the exhibition
of a downtown area decimated and nearly 66,000 individuals in a split second killed by the
impact and warmth of a solitary atomic weapon. During the Cold War the US, Soviet Union,
and other real powers enhanced tremendous storages that contain large number of atomic
bombs and other weapons of mass annihilation and such a large number of that the military
and conciliatory standoff of that time was at times portrayed as a “parity of fear”. Synthetic
weapons comprise of fluids and gases that stifle their unfortunate casualties, poison their
blood, rankle their skin, or upset their sensory system. Chlorine gas and mustard gas were
shot in big guns shells against settled in troops during both World War I right off the bat in
the twentieth century and the Iran-Iraq War close to the century's end. Biological weapons
contain normal poisons, for example, microorganisms, infections or parasites; splashed or
burst over-populated regions, they may cause constrained however extreme episodes of such
savage sicknesses as Bacillus anthracis, pneumonic plague or smallpox. Natural weapons
have not been used in current war since the Japanese spread plague-tainted lice in zones of
China during World War II. Nonetheless, the relative simplicity with which both natural and
compound specialists can be readied, bundled, conveyed, and set off have raised feelings of
trepidation that they may turn into the weapon of selection of psychological oppressors. In
fact, since the finish of the Cold War the primary concern with respect to sum total of what
WMD has been multiplication, that is, the potential for lesser forces, "maverick states," or
worldwide fear based oppressor gatherings to get the way to create and convey WMD.
Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Treaty
Out of Nuclear weapon, biological weapon and chemical weapon, atomic weapon is the most
dangerous and life threatening. There is some of procedure to get atomic instruments:
carrying these instruments in US, consolidating radiological equipment with a regular
hazardous gadget on a broad zone, using traditional touchy assaults, atomic offices and
additionally materials as of now in the US and gaining a compound that is weaponized and
sent in a populated area (tandfonline, 2007). While WMD’s impart dread in the American
individuals, there are a couple of reasons that keep fear based oppressors from really utilizing
such techniques: hierarchical abilities, monetary assets, learning, aptitudes and acquisitions,
materials and innovation acquisitions, creation, weaponization, and conveyance. State
3 | P a g e

International Relations
sponsorship fear based oppressor gatherings may choose to secure and utilize WMD's for
motivations to improve their state's or gathering's notoriety in a district of world, furnish a
nation with more influence on the planet network or for vital persuasive components (JENNY
& LIMAGE, 2018). In spite of choice, WMD’s are dangerous. There are nine states who
have atomic weapons, some states having substance and natural weapons and 29 nations
might had organic synthetic weapons programs. Hence, there remains the potential for
psychological militant gatherings to cause huge losses and upset a states (Nations, 2019).
Bargain on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear instruments, additionally called Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty, understanding of July 1, 1968, marked by United Kingdom, United
States, the Soviet Union, and 59 different states, under which the three noteworthy
signatories, which had atomic weapons, made a deal to avoid helping different states in
acquiring or creating them. The settlement wound up compelling in March 1970 and was to
remain so for a 25-year time span (Nations, 2019). Extra nations later confirmed the bargain;
starting at 2007 just three nations (India, Israel, and Pakistan) have would not sign the
settlement and one nation (North Korea) has marked and after that pulled back from the
arrangement. The settlement was expanded inconclusively and without conditions in 1995 by
an agreement vote of 174 nations at United Nations home office in New York City
(Disarmament, 2019).
The Non-Proliferation Treaty is exceptionally inconsistent, as it obliges nonnuclear states to
do without advancement of atomic weapons while enabling the set up atomic states to keep
theirs. By and by, it has been acknowledged on the grounds that, particularly at the season of
marking, most nonnuclear states had neither the limit nor the tendency to pursue the atomic
way, and they were very much aware of the risks of expansion for their security. Moreover, it
was comprehended in 1968 that, as an end-result of their exceptional status, the atomic states
would help the nonnuclear states in the improvement of regular citizen atomic power and
furthermore that the atomic states would try their earnest attempts to concur on proportions of
demilitarization (Nations, 2019). In the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty
on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, this disparity was a noteworthy grumbling against
the set up atomic forces. The bargain keeps on assuming a significant job in supporting the
global standard against multiplication, however it has been tested by various occasions,
including-
4 | P a g e

International Relations
1. North Korea’s dissent from the settlement in 2003 as it tried to secure atomic
weapons,
2. proof of the advancement Iraq made during the 1980s on its atomic program
regardless of being a signatory to the arrangement, and
3. Charges about uranium improvement offices in Iran, one more signatory to the
settlement. The validity of the non-multiplication standard has additionally been
undermined by the capacity of India and Pakistan to progress toward becoming
announced atomic powers in 1998 with no genuine worldwide punishment—and in
reality by India building up its own uncommon courses of action as a feature of a
respective arrangement with the United States in 2008 (control, 2012).
Biological Weapons and Biological Weapons Convention of 1972
Natural WMD’s were initially utilized by United States in 1763 when Britishers wanted to
disperse covers with smallpox. Endeavours, for example, this kept during war as officers
were immovable in murdering off their adversaries. Today, nevertheless, people, instead of
gatherings, have utilized the utilization of organic weapons. Sorts of natural weapons
incorporate plague and Bacillus anthracis. Infections that include little pox, hepatitis, the
avian flu and poisons, for example, botchalism and ricin. There are three different procedure
organic weapons work: contact with skin, gastrointestinal and pneumonic (Webster, 2019).
This kind of weapon is very risky and easy to make or take a few to get back some
composure. (Hooker, 2019).
Biological Weapons Convention (BWC), officially Convention on the restrictions on
enhancement, manufacturing and storage of Biological and Toxin Weapons. Global
arrangement that restrict the utilization of natural instruments in war and denies all
improvement, creation, procurement, storing, or move of such weapons. (control, 2018).
The BWC restricts nations that have marked the settlement from creating, delivering, storing,
getting, or holding natural operators or poisons of sorts and in amounts that have no support
for defensive, cautious, or other serene intentions. The settlement likewise bans any gear or
methods for conveyance that is intended to utilize organic specialists or poisons for
unfriendly purposes or outfitted clash. It expects member countries to decimate organic
weapons, specialists, and creation offices inside nine months of the arrangement's entrance
into power (Control, 2018).
5 | P a g e

International Relations
Chemical Weapons and Chemical Weapons Convention
Chemical WMD’s return as ahead of schedule as 1000 BC, when Chinese utilized arsenic
smog. They were utilized widely in World War I and II. All the more as of late in 1995, sarin
was utilized to assault tram prepares in Tokyo This kind of weapon is not as risky as organic
weapons because of the wastefulness, the requirement for critical measure of the compound,
and as it identifies with a lower number of losses. The fundamental distinction in any case,
among natural and substance weapons is that synthetic is quick. By the by, a synthetic assault
would must have an exceptionally refined conveyance framework to have a noteworthy
impact (Weapons, 2019).
Substance Weapons Convention (CWC), officially Convention on the restriction on the
enhancement, manufacturing, storing and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their
Destruction, global settlement that bans the utilization of concoction weapons in war and
disallows all improvement, creation, obtaining, storing, or move of such weapons. The
United Nations Conference on Disarmament received the CWC on September 3, 1992, and
the bargain was opened to signature by all states on January 13, 1993. The CWC went into
power on April 29, 1997. Starting at 2013, the main nations that had neither marked nor
agreed to the CWC were Angola, Egypt, North Korea, and South Sudan (Weapons, 2019).
When compound fighting was presented on the war zone by the German armed force in 1915,
synthetic weapons were created and utilized by every one of the forces taking part in World
War I, and in excess of a million concoction losses and an expected 91,000 fatalities came
about. Following the war, Germany was taboo to fabricate or import toxin gas weapons under
the particulars of the Treaty of Versailles (1919).
The 1925 Geneva Protocol restricted the utilization of compound and organic weapons yet
did not deny the advancement, creation, storing, or move of such weapons. Also, 25 of the
signatory states maintained whatever authority is needed to fight back in kind if another state
utilized synthetic weapons first. Actually, a large portion of the forces that had marked the
convention had powerful synthetic fighting capacities primed and ready for use entering
World War II, and everything except Japan were stopped from use by the ownership of such
weapons by their foes.
6 | P a g e

International Relations
Realist Theory
Realist in global relations or what is extra included to as Political Realism, is viewed as “one
of the most established hypotheses to worldwide relations, and is broadly held as a
perspective”. While it is one of the soonest hypotheses, “the main cognizant articulations of a
pragmatist way to deal with the investigation of worldwide legislative issues advanced out of
the clear disappointment of liberal standards to the universal circle would change the idea of
worldwide governmental issues, specifically its endemic viciousness”. Realists in worldwide
relations are largely fixated on pragmatist suppositions of human behaviour. The pragmatists
accept that human behaviour is continuously related issues about self-image and personal
interests and wants and explicitly(Cimbala, 2017).
Realist theory and Weapons of Mass destruction
The devotee of pragmatist hypothesis have answer with respect to atomic weapons that the
nations are creating atomic weapons when they surmise that their nation is confronting
genuine risk to the security and may create compound and natural weapon regardless
legitimate commitment. For the most part, compound and organic weapons are named as
'poor man's atomic weapon' since they are less expensive to create (Antunes & Camisao,
2018). They are less ruinous when contrasted with atomic weapon. Under the Biological
Weapons Conventions and Chemical Conventions, a large portion of the signatory nations
have concurred that they won't create concoction and organic weapons. The adherent of this
hypothesis expresses that more fragile nations will in general cheat the commitments they
have concurred. They have verification that seven nations to be specific: Iran, Libya, North
Korea, Syria, South Korea, Taiwan and Iraq have shroud the supplies of concoction and
organic weapons.
7 | P a g e

International Relations
Bibliography
Anderson, J. & Moodie, A., 2017. Weapons of Mass Destruction. [Online]
Available at: https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199743292/
obo-9780199743292-0221.xml
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
Antunes, S. & Camisao, I., 2018. Introducing Realism in International Relations Theory.
[Online]
Available at: https://www.e-ir.info/2018/02/27/introducing-realism-in-international-relations-
theory/
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
Cimbala, S. J., 2017. Nuclear Proliferation in the Twenty-First Century: Realism,
Rationality, or Uncertainty. [Online]
Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/26271593?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
control, a., 2012. The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) at a Glance. [Online]
Available at: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nptfact
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
Control, A., 2018. Biological Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties. [Online]
Available at: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwcsig
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
control, a., 2018. The Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) At A Glance. [Online]
Available at: https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/bwc
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
Disarmament, 2019. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. [Online]
Available at: http://disarmament.un.org/treaties/t/npt
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
Hooker, E., 2019. Biological Warfare. [Online]
Available at:
https://www.emedicinehealth.com/biological_warfare/article_em.htm#what_is_the_history_o
8 | P a g e

International Relations
f_biological_warfare
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
ICRC, 2015. A century of weapons of mass destruction: Enough!. [Online]
Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/document/century-weapons-mass-destruction-enough-0
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
JENNY, J. & LIMAGE, S., 2018. COMBATING THE SPREAD OF WEAPONS OF MASS
DESTRUCTION: A SUCCESS STORY FOR THE U.S.-E.U. PARTNERSHIP. [Online]
Available at: https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/combating-spread-weapons-mass-
destruction-success-story-u-s-e-u-partnership/
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
Nations, U., 2019. Nuclear Weapons. [Online]
Available at: https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
Nations, U., 2019. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). [Online]
Available at: https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
Nations, U., 2019. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). [Online]
Available at: https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/text/
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
tandfonline, 2007. Nuclear proliferation and ‘realistic deterrence’ in a new century. [Online]
Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09662830208407530?
needAccess=true
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
Weapons, O. f. t. P. o. C., 2019. Chemical Weapons Convention. [Online]
Available at: https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
Weapons, O. f. t. P. o. C., 2019. What is a Chemical Weapon?. [Online]
Available at: https://www.opcw.org/our-work/what-chemical-weapon
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
9 | P a g e

International Relations
Webster, M., 2019. biological weapon. [Online]
Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biological%20weapon
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
WMD, 2019. Weapons of Mass Destruction. [Online]
Available at: https://www.rand.org/topics/weapons-of-mass-destruction.html
[Accessed 29 June 2019].
10 | P a g e