The Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has not succeeded in adding any additional universal stigma to nuclear weapons. It lacks the support base needed for replacing the Cold War vintage “Mutual Assured Destruction” with “Mutual Assured Abstinence”. The nuclear weapon countries’ faith in the deterrence logic remains intact.
War, when all else fails. The reasons for war could be ideological or for greater control over finite resources but war invariably has violence at its epicentre. Ethics and wars have rarely been concentric in human history; therefore, wars have seen the employment of all possible means. Victory, as the ultimate aim, has forced warring sides to look at multiple options and biological weapons are one such method. Biological weapons are as old as war itself and their primitive recorded use was centuries ago.
A. Vinod Kumar replies:Strategic Deterrence has traditionally (especially during the Cold War) been associated with nuclear weapons - possession of capability to undertake unacceptable destruction and deterring the adversary by posturing the ability and intent to do so. The strategic environment of post-Cold War period, however, witnessed the advent of newer threats beyond the realm of nuclear deterrence.
Md. Muddassir Quamar replies: The stated reasons for the 2003 Iraq war were presence of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and harbouring of terrorists that subsequently proved to be exaggerated and erroneous. The actual reason was lingering problems between the United States (US) and Iraq since early 1990s. Iraq had attacked and annexed Kuwait in August 1990. The US responded by launching Operation Desert Storm to liberate Kuwait, which was achieved in January 1991.
Given the advertisement surrounding the use of MOAB, it is possible that the Trump administration is signalling to its adversaries the very lethal weapons in its arsenal and its willingness to use them.
The key to calling Pakistan’s nuclear bluff lies in ensuring that the Indian armed forces are prepared to meet the threat of use of tactical nuclear weapons.
India has always been a peace loving nation and have distant itself from unwanted wars. After the introduction of the weapons of mass destruction, India has followed an unique path to preserve its identity as a global power in the world arena. It has supported the convention on Chemical and Biological weapons.
Even as the uncertainty over the alleged use of chemical weapons use in Syria deepens, the cautious US response to the situation has been conditioned by the lack of viable military options as well as its Iraq war experience.
With new developments in the field of science and technology it is becoming very tough for countries to change the level of security preparedness. It is also becoming increasingly difficult for a country to undertake correct threat assessment. While the state's security is relatively assured with the obsolescence of major wars, the non-state actors are found using innovative techniques to spread the divisive politics.
Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
The Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons has not succeeded in adding any additional universal stigma to nuclear weapons. It lacks the support base needed for replacing the Cold War vintage “Mutual Assured Destruction” with “Mutual Assured Abstinence”. The nuclear weapon countries’ faith in the deterrence logic remains intact.