1 Answer | Add Yours
I think that weapons of mass destruction are significant because they represent a fundamental threat to global peace. In the final analysis, the significance of weapons of mass destruction is that if individuals wish to live in a world where world peace is more fully recognizable, there has to be an elimination of weapons of mass destruction. In the end, there is a fear that those who covet power and control could take hold of these weapons and wreak havoc with them. The fundamental fear behind nations like South Korea and Iran in gaining nuclear weapons is that they will use these weapons in destructive and in manners that break apart society as opposed to bringing them together.
Yet, the real significance of weapons of mass destruction might just be that in order to guarantee world peace, weapons of mass destruction are the only elements that can assist. In the end, one can argue that weapons of mass destruction deters other nations from attempting anything aggressive. For example, the reason why nations like Iran have to think twice about developing the capacity for developing a nuclear device of destruction is because nations such as the United States can easily train its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction onto them. It is this condition of a mutually assured destruction that helps to make weapons of mass destruction significant because they make nations as both attacker and defender. This makes weapons of mass destruction extremely challenging to assess and therefore highly significant. On one hand, their presence helps to take away from the goals of world peace. Yet, on the other hand, their presence might be the only thing to enable world peace to happen. It is here where I think that weapons of mass destruction becomes significant from intellectual and geopolitical points of view.
We’ve answered 302,281 questions. We can answer yours, too.Ask a question