Chemical weapons: Pros and cons

Regarding the issue, the article that supports the chemical weapons presented that (1) some countries particularly US developed a program that aims for uncomplicated and more accessible ways to identify biological agents, and (2) chemical weapons can be used by nations in preparation for their defense against terrorism. On the other hand, chemical weapons are opposed by the antagonist by citing that: (1) chemical weapons create destructions on civilians like what happened on the Moscow Hostage Rescue, and (2) Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) prohibits the manufacture and utilizing chemical weapons.

2.

Based on the facts they have presented, the authors also handed their own opinions regarding chemical weapons. Those who supported the chemical weapons articulated that (1) large cities and states need a vast range of protection from terrorists and having chemical weapons can resist terrorist activities in their area and (2) having them creates the feeling of safety from any attacks. However, the antagonist stressed that (1) the use of chemical weapons can cause human ailments to civilians and (2) manufacturing large amounts of chemical weapons can broaden the disputes between nations that leads to chemical warfare.

Get quality help now

Writer Lyla

Verified writer

Proficient in: Terrorism

5 (876)

“ Have been using her for a while and please believe when I tell you, she never fail. Thanks Writer Lyla you are indeed awesome ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

3. PRO–The article Biological Weapons: Preparing for the Worst mentioned massive production of chemical weapons are not well-guarded thus it is always subjected to terrorism and human safety is quite unsure since chemical weapons emit harmful agents that endanger humans and these statements made he article inconsistent. 4. CON–The article “Non- Lethal” Chemical Weapons: A Faustian Bargain did not focus on the idea that without these chemical weapons, a nation has no powerful defense against terrorist activities and sudden attacks therefore they are always susceptible to them.

But it was mentioned in the article yet, it was disregarded. 5. The supportive side exaggerated the effects of terrorism without the presence of chemical weapons and focused mainly on the benefits of chemical weapons to their defense capabilities. While the antagonist focused on a situation showing the wrong use of chemical weapons and its harmful effect to the environment and human health. 6. The two authors are highly credible since both have presented their arguments based on their respective experiences, expertise and profession.

And, the two have undergone studies from which they have extracted their views and used them as strong points in delivering their arguments. 7. For me, the one who supported the issue was more empirical than the other due to the fact that he cited many valid proofs that supported his stand. Unlike the antagonist that focused his idea only on one setting, the author who supported the issue also mentioned some bad effects of using chemical weapons however, he indirectly pointed out that wise management of these chemical weapons is more of a help than a disease to us.

8. Yes. I believe that each of the authors have their own biases. The supportive one focused mainly on large cities and states disregarding the small countries which are also victims of chemical weapons. Also, if ever we’re persuaded by him, the effect would be great to those unnoticed countries. On the other hand, the antagonist focused his idea only on the incident that happened in Moscow, related the incident to the other countries which have been badly affected by the weapons and centered the issue on the mismanagement of the weapons.

9. I agree more to the pro than the con. In terms of logic and good reasoning, he provided many ideas and proofs considering that his study focused mainly on large cities and states and how chemical weapons lessen the chance for terrorist activities. Since nowadays, there are rampant terrorist attacks; I stand for proper use and good management of these weapons. Thus, I am of the same mind that chemical weapons are needed. PRO article: Biological Weapons: Preparing for the Worst by Donna L.

Leach Major Thesis: The author presumed that one thing worst that would happen is the chemical weapons entering the market and be readily and easily be available to terrorist and crooks. CON article: “Nonlethal" Chemical Weapons: A Faustian Bargain by Wheelis, Mark Major Thesis: In his article, the author displayed that chemical weapons, when properly managed, are the best main defenses of a state against infiltrations and unexpected and impulsive attacks and terrorist activities. References