The Pros And Cons Of Biological Terrorism
In recent discussions of bio terrorism being the biggest threat on national security, a controversial issue is that nuclear bombs/ warfare is a bigger threat on national warfare. On one hand biological war can be more dangerous due to the terrorist attack could be hidden as a normal disease or a pandemic. On the other hand nuclear bombs could be a lot more dangerous because a bomb could wipe out an entire continent with one explosion. Or the radiation that comes off from the explosion. In summary, bio terrorism is the biggest threat on national security. While some people believe that nuclear weapons would cause more of a threat on our national security, I believe that biological terrorism/ germ warfare from what its capabilities and fire
…show more content…
“If effectively deployed a biological attack could kill or debilitate even more people than an improved dirty bomb.” (Ox research 1) the author means that if a bio attack was deployed correctly it would kill more people than even a improved nuclear bomb could do. “A national Security Council paper released in November warned about such an attack could kill thousands and clean up and economic dislocation could exceed one trillion dollars.”(Ox research 1) The author means that if someone was to create and unleash a pathological disease they would end up wiping out continents and the people who aren’t sick would be economically dislocated. Then cleaning up all of the debris from that attack would end up costing over a trillion dollars, which would put the United States in deeper debt.
On the other hand people think that nuclear terrorism can be a major threat to our national security, and I see why they would say that. A nuclear weapon is a bomb or missile that uses nuclear energy to cause an explosion. The device is derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either from fission or a combination of fission and fusion. Both reactions release vast quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter. Kennedy thought that nuclear weapons were too dangerous ad are not needed by mankind. He estimated countries tech …show more content…
A lapsed and totally out of date strategy of deference basically saying that nuclear weapons are becoming more complex and no one knows what they are capable any more. Nuclear-weapon threats to the United States and its allies have steadily increased over the past 20 years, but because they're so different from the global thermonuclear threat of the Cold War, they have gone virtually unnoticed. Russia tops the list. First, it is still the only nation capable of destroying the United States. Second, Russia must increase its nuclear-weapons capability, as this is the only reason for its being considered a superpower. Third, over the past decade, the Russians have changed their military strategy to one based on the early use of nuclear weapons in all military conflicts, large or small. Fourth, they have preserved thousands of Cold War–era tactical nuclear weapons—a force unmatched by any Western power.(Monroe ,2009) Russia has been researching, developing, testing and producing advanced and highly unstable weapons. Which are relatively clean weapons but unleash high levels of intense radiation. This means that over the years the other nations could be researching the tech for a new and improved nuke and we might be falling behind in our own
“If effectively deployed a biological attack could kill or debilitate even more people than an improved dirty bomb.” (Ox research 1) the author means that if a bio attack was deployed correctly it would kill more people than even a improved nuclear bomb could do. “A national Security Council paper released in November warned about such an attack could kill thousands and clean up and economic dislocation could exceed one trillion dollars.”(Ox research 1) The author means that if someone was to create and unleash a pathological disease they would end up wiping out continents and the people who aren’t sick would be economically dislocated. Then cleaning up all of the debris from that attack would end up costing over a trillion dollars, which would put the United States in deeper debt.
On the other hand people think that nuclear terrorism can be a major threat to our national security, and I see why they would say that. A nuclear weapon is a bomb or missile that uses nuclear energy to cause an explosion. The device is derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions, either from fission or a combination of fission and fusion. Both reactions release vast quantities of energy from relatively small amounts of matter. Kennedy thought that nuclear weapons were too dangerous ad are not needed by mankind. He estimated countries tech …show more content…
A lapsed and totally out of date strategy of deference basically saying that nuclear weapons are becoming more complex and no one knows what they are capable any more. Nuclear-weapon threats to the United States and its allies have steadily increased over the past 20 years, but because they're so different from the global thermonuclear threat of the Cold War, they have gone virtually unnoticed. Russia tops the list. First, it is still the only nation capable of destroying the United States. Second, Russia must increase its nuclear-weapons capability, as this is the only reason for its being considered a superpower. Third, over the past decade, the Russians have changed their military strategy to one based on the early use of nuclear weapons in all military conflicts, large or small. Fourth, they have preserved thousands of Cold War–era tactical nuclear weapons—a force unmatched by any Western power.(Monroe ,2009) Russia has been researching, developing, testing and producing advanced and highly unstable weapons. Which are relatively clean weapons but unleash high levels of intense radiation. This means that over the years the other nations could be researching the tech for a new and improved nuke and we might be falling behind in our own