Weapons of Mass Destruction

Globalization of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Introduction

In the recent past, the number of countries that develop biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons of mass destructions (WMD) has increased significantly. The amount of ballistic missiles, as well as the number of countries in possession of WMD, has increased by a huge proportion owing to the phenomenon of globalization. According to Huddy & Feldman (2011), globalization refers to the integration of technology, capital, and information across different national borders in a manner that allows individuals, states, and companies to expand their actions throughout the world. It is this aspect that has facilitated the expansion of WMD which refers to weapons of devices with the capability to cause serious injury and death to a large group of people through the release of poisonous chemicals, disease organism, or radiation. Globalization has played a significant in the proliferation of weapons of mass destructions through the growth of distribution networks, technology and exchange of information which have been employed in various terrorist attacks in the world

Globalization of Weapons of Mass Destruction

Globalization of the economy has been facilitated by various actions including the implementation and growth of the World Wide Web, development of common software, and increasing use of international supply chains and outsourcing strategies that have facilitated the revolution of digital technology. Although these transformations have created positive effects in the world economy, they have also facilitated the growth of insecurity owing to the spread of WMDs. The proliferation of WMDs has been facilitated by the fact that such operations often derive their power from the growth of technological, world trade, and scientific developments that cause trade to become reagents for the creation and diffusion of technology (Arms Control Association. (2003). As such, it has become increasingly difficult for countries to detect the possibility of illicit transfer of materials related to WMDs. As such, it has become possible for sponsor states in the international community and those without the right to WMD development to develop both formal and informal relationships with various terrorist groups. Additionally, growth in the international system after the Cold War has made it difficult to control the flow of money, technology, materials, and people, some of whom have close links to WMD programs. It is upon this understanding that terrorist groups, particularly after the 9/11, started taking advantage of various elements of globalization to facilitate the proliferation of WMDs. Globalization has facilitated uncertainty and inability of the international security system to detect the flow of cargo related to WMDs that are intended to support the activities of the terrorist groups.

Globalization is the reason why most trafficking networks have become global, owing to the availability of technology and materials related to WMD. This proliferation has been facilitated by increasing trading volumes and the application of materials that have caused the growth of networks that were considered impossible to access previously. These networks have also evolved and grown owing to the implementation of multilateral and national export control mechanisms in different member states. As a result, member states have resorted to purchasing single sub-components of WMD systems rather than the entire systems. Such procurement of materials and equipment has facilitated various intelligence and security services to facilitate the proliferation of various WMD activities.

The relevance of Globalization in the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destructions

The use of WMDs often affects people’s lives the society and their future significantly. With the understanding of the effect of globalization on the growth of WMDs, it is evident that the 9/11 attack was as a result of this proliferation. A group of 19 militants that were related with the Islamic extremist al Qaeda hijacked four airplanes and executed suicide attacks on various placed including the twin towers at the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and the Shanksville, Pennsylvania. This attack caused the death of more than 3000 people triggering the U.S. military to combat the effect of terrorism with stringent measures The effect of this attack has had a lasting impact on the mental, emotional, and social health of Americans.

Adverse effect on mental and physical health was reported following this incident. The death of more than 3000 people caused lasting post-traumatic stress disorders and associated health ailments. According to a report by Alper, Yu, Stellman, & Brackbill (2017), most Americans reported symptoms of fear and anxiety coupled with the onset of various physical health illnesses that were mostly related to cardiovascular issues. The event caused the death of more than 1000 people while others still continue to live with various physical injuries that have since incapacitated their ability to execute various operations efficiently. Additionally, people lost their jobs, an aspect that caused families to suffer due to the lack of basic amenities with little or no support from the federal and state government.

The terrorist attack had a social, economic, and political impact on the United States. The most evident effect is the direct economic destruction of lives and property on particularly the world trade centre, which was a recognized business hub. The bombing caused the loss of property coupled with thousands of productive workers who could have pushed the country’s economy ahead. The attack on these buildings caused the loss of employment opportunities and created market uncertainty that was coupled with increased insurance claims and xenophobia. Additionally, the country suffered economic losses that were facilitated by the loss of tourism and investments in the country as a result of uncertainty in the global and local trade system. The uncertainty caused by this event caused the financial markets in the country to shut down most of which only recovered after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003. The attack hurt international trade due to compromised distribution systems and trade routes that diminished foreign direct investment (FDI) in the country.

From a political perspective, the war caused the explosion of responsive strategies that facilitated the erosion of various civil liberties and facilitated expensive wars as a retaliation by the United States. The country had the perception that they were under attack, an aspect that caused the government to retaliate and attack Iraq in 2003. According to Christoff (2001), this action can be explained by the fact that the government is likely to react using strong responsive mechanisms due to the fear of future attacks. The fact that the country implemented stringent security measures can be explained as a positive consequence of the post terrorism attack. The government has supported strong domestic and foreign security policies in a bid to protect the country from similar attacks in the future.

Future Relevance of Globalization in WMDs

            The proliferation of WMDs as a result of globalization often results in instability in the country in terms of economic, social, psychological, and emotional effects. However, although terrorism results in adverse effects on the country’s stability, it facilitates the development of stringent measures to prevent the occurrence of similar attacks in future. For instance, since the 9/11 attack, the United States has gained interest in the effects of globalization on the proliferation of weapons of mass destructions. In a bid to combat this growth, the United States implemented four essential policy instruments including international treaties, export controls, provision of security assistance to other countries, and multilateral export control strategies (Hutchinson, 2011). These strategies were implemented to prevent the transfer of WMDs and related technologies to terrorists in different parts of the world by obligating member countries to restrict possible transfer to other areas. For instance, the U.S. export control strategy set various regulatory and legal conditions under which various technologies and goods would be exported. Additionally, the provision of security assistance by the U.S. to other countries helped to eliminate or control the spread of chemical, nuclear, and biological weapons thus mitigating their spread. These strategies show that globalization facilitates the spread of WMDs in that states can buy or steal these weapons if they are not adequately guarded. However, the measures that were implemented can be associated with the peace and tranquillity that has since been enjoyed in the country.

However, although regions such as the United States has taken measures to control the spread of WMDs, the growing globalization of the world economy has made it difficult to control the technologies employed in the development and spread of these weapons. According to Christoff (2001), these strategies can only be achieved through continued cooperation amongst the exporting and transit countries such that the critical items that are denied in one country cannot be obtained from another one. This is important since the development of WMDs often jeopardizes both individual and regional stability owing to the fact that WMD tend to create additional vulnerabilities as a result of coercive threats from other states. According to Caves Jr, & Carus, (2014), the use of WMDs such as the nuclear or biological often serves as a catalyst that increases the vertical or horizontal proliferation of weapons in nearby countries. For instance, after the Iranian nuclear program was listed as high profile, there was a resultant shockwave that facilitated the introduction of advanced nuclear programs in neighbouring countries such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Egypt. Additionally, the 9/11 attack caused the United States to develop its weaponry in preparation for the attack on Iraq that happened in 2003. This happens because, when the interests of regional powers clash with those of international powers, there is a high likelihood that the former may resort to the use of WMDs. Additionally, there is a high likelihood that the countries with the ability to develop WMDs may supply other terrorist groups to combat the interests of superpowers. This may cause the states with the ability to produce WMD to collapse causing the non-state groups to access such weapons. For instance, the international community has been concerned with the likelihood of experiencing the proliferation of WMDs in the neighbouring states owing to the fact that Syria possesses an arsenal of chemical weapons.

Globalization has facilitated the proliferation of WMDs network and increased complexity due to additional actors who are involved in the operations. This has facilitated increased trade of sub-components and the development of additional mechanisms – such as those invented by the terrorists – to prevent detection. Globalization has also facilitated changes in the control of WMD equipment and materials that were previously under the control of state organizations and governments (Joyner, 2009). However, the expansion of various globalized markets has caused the management of WMD transactions to get transferred to private brokers and a network of independent manufacturers who have acquired the permission to run genuine commercial activities. Additionally, the brokers have expanded and the traffickers of WMD materials have expanded to a global community that takes advantage of front agencies and companies to traffic in order to avoid the possibility of government detection.

In the near future, there is a possibility of WMD brokers to merge their activities with illegal traffickers through the creation of synergies that enable the brokers to take advantage of their experience and routes. In order to remain successful, these networks will need to work with different transhipment centres and particularly in regions with a high volume of international trade to increase their success in eluding detection procedures. Additionally, the brokers are likely to implement the use of front companies, fake end-users, and brokers to establish legitimate trafficking networks while taking advantage of funding from both legal and illegal sources. Additionally, brokers could be hired to hand the transfer, purchase, and sale of goods linked to the WMD together with transportation services and regular insurance. This is crucial since brokers may enable the networks to camouflage and circumvent various restrictions in the trade activities. This is a likely possibility considering that reports show the involvement of corrupt brokers in the trafficking of various chemical weapons among other WMDs.

References

Huddy, L., & Feldman, S. (2011). Americans respond politically to 9/11: Understanding the impact of the terrorist attacks and their aftermath. American Psychologist, 66(6), 455.

Alper, H. E., Yu, S., Stellman, S. D., & Brackbill, R. M. (2017). Injury, intense dust exposure, and chronic disease among survivors of the World Trade Center terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Injury Epidemiology, 4(1), 17.

Christoff, J. A. (2001). Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing US Policy Tools for Combating Proliferation (No. GAO-02-226T). General Accounting Office Washington DC.

Arms Control Association. (2003). National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Graham, T. W. (2001). Weapons of mass destruction: does globalization mean proliferation? Brookings Review, 19(4), 38-41.

Caves Jr, J. P., & Carus, W. S. (2014). The future of weapons of mass destruction: their nature and role in 2030. National Defense Univ Fort Mcnair Dc Center For The Study Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction.

Joyner, D. (2009). International law and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Oxford University Press, USA.

Hutchinson, R. (2011). Weapons of Mass Destruction: The no-nonsense guide to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons today. Hachette UK.