CRITIQUE/WMD MASS TERM

IMPACT: WMD AS A MASS TERM MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO MAKE PROPER POLICY DECISIONS

WMD MASS TERM MAKES THREAT AND CONSEQUENCE EVALUATION DIFFICULT AND UNCLEAR

Second, the grouping of CB weap-ons with nuclear weapons into the category of weapons of mass de-struction blurs the threat and conse-quence assessments for each individual class of non-conven-tional weaponry. The most plausible type of weapon to be used in a ter-rorist strike (chemical weapons) is mentally linked to the most destruc-tive weapon category (nuclear weap-ons), and vice versa. Chemical weapons are thus implicitly associ-ated with the far greater destructive power of nuclear arms, and the nuclear threat is heightened because of the greater plausibility of terror-ist organizations acquiring chemical weapons. Biological weapons oc-cupy the middle ground between these two extremes: they are said to be both easy to acquire and able to produce mass casualties. Within each of the three categories, the po-tentially most lethal agents are the ones considered.

AMERICA’S POLICY OF WMD RESPONSE TO A WMD ATTACK HAS NOT BEEN MADE SPECIFIC ENOUGH

Current American declaratory policy regarding the use of nuclear weapons, formulated during the midst of the Cold War, is both out of date and unnecessarily vague--particularly with respect to biological and chemical threats. While the Soviet threat has receded, a different threat has appeared. Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--nuclear, biological, and chemical--are spreading, frequently to nations hostile to the United States. Biological weapons can be nearly as horrible in their effects as nuclear weapons; and chemical weapons, though less destructive, are more easily acquired and more likely to be used.