Topic B: Have nations in the 20th century been justified in developing and/or using weapons of mass destruction?.
Science has advanced leaps and bounds in the last 100 years. With the progress came the greatest weapon of mass destruction ever, the atomic bomb. With the development of nuclear weapons, other methods, such as chemical warfare, were also looked at as possible methods of mass destruction. The problem is as more and more nations become capable of making weapons of mass destruction, the more other nations feel they must start producing their own for their own safety. It becomes complex as to say who should produce nuclear weapons and who should not. Should a nation work on a nuclear weapons program to make sure that they are safe? Should poorer countries receive help from the superpowers to make their own weapons of mass destruction to prevent its neighbours attacking? Some believe that it is crucial to make nuclear weapons to protect .
a nation that is under the threat of a more powerful country. Others may say that it is important for countries to not waste their money on killing machines and focus on helping its people instead. Experts on the issue, such as Mikhal Gorbachev, have recognised that despite the amount of nuclear weapons, the key focus should be on helping the country first. Nations were justified in the development of a very limited number nuclear weapons but are rarely justified in using them. The threat of a nuclear attack and retaliation will prevent war, the use of weapons of mass destruction away from human contact to show its force will stop nations from attacking, and prohibiting any nation making weapons of mass destruction, and ceding all weapons to the UN, to use as they see fit, will justify the making of weapons of mass destruction, and their occasional use.
The justification in developing weapons of mass destruction only for the UN's purpose is that.