Pros And Cons Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction

It can be concluded, two common interests among all states are a sense of security and peace; secured borders, security for their people, resources, and for their culture. If all states were to achieve this goal, the world would resemble a utopic community. This will thus render useless the possession of weapons, more specifically Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). In reality, this ideal world does not exist. On the contrary, states with the monetary resources do possess chemical, biological, and nuclear warheads as a mean of assurance against a potential attack. Those sovereign states are referred to as nuclear powerful states, and have an equitable amount of influence within the international community. Their influence is primarily exemplified in creating and enacting international law. It can be argued, the ability to achieve world peace can be found in the enforcement of a strict multilateral treaty on disarmament. Although accomplishing world peace may involve many other attributes and components of international law, the elimination rather than the

The Convention was the result of prolonged efforts by the international community to establish a new instrument that would supplement the 1925 Geneva Protocol. This was the first multilateral disarmament treaty banning the production of an entire category of weapons. Just like the CWC, the BWC called for the prohibition of the development, production, and stockpiling of all forms of Biological weapons. Unlike the CWC, the BWC lacked a formal verification regime to monitor compliance with the convention has limited its effectiveness. The nations that were parties to the convention agreed to establish the Ad Hoc Group of the States Parties to the BWC to negotiate and develop a legally binding verification