Pros And Cons Of Chemical Weapons

Debates about chemical/biological weapons were briefly talked about in the media and people’s everyday conversations. In the early 2000’s several letters containing anthrax spores, a deadly infection, were sent to multiple news media officers and two democratic senators. This occured a week after the horrifying attack on the World Trade Center, September 11, 2001. These letters led to five deaths, seventeen infected from the exposure, and a complex unsolved FBI investigation. This was a terror attack that could have been worse if not treated quickly but, couldn’t more have died if it was a bomb or gun attack? While chemical or biological weapons are deadly, they aren’t as big of a threat to the citizens of the United States as conventional

A gun would be the deadliest conventional weapon for it is used much more, is very common among some living in america, easy to buy, and they are cheaper. For instance someone can buy a gun, or ingredients for homemade bombs at Walmart with little difficulty or cost. It would be very challenging to get a hold of a harmful chemical or disease. Since WWI there has been around 150,000 deaths by bio./chem. Weapons by terrorism, warfare, or accidents, excluding the holocaust gas victims. That is a very large number but doesn’t compare to the amount of gun deaths. In the U.S. there have been more gun deaths than every U.S. soldier that has lost their life in all of the wars or battles combined. The U.S. hasn’t had a proven bioterrorist attack since 2001 and i have not found any evidence of a chemical attack on the United States. The second deadliest mass shooting was the United States worst terror attack since 9/11 where 49 people were shot dead at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida. There have been many minor bombings but none have been as effective as mass