Weaponry Advancement

Grenades, torpedoes, nuclear bombs and biological warfare. These are just some of the many advancements in weaponry in the past century. Though many countries possess these weapons, they still seek out to make more and obtain even deadlier weapons. I’m terrified to know what new weapon will replace biological warfare, an already terrifying weapon. Even recently, during the Bush Administration, the Unites States has sought out to build 2,200 new nuclear bombs (Washington Post). In The Meanings of War, the author states that with the creation of newer and deadlier weapons, people believe that possessing them will make war become a thing of the past(Barash and Webel). These people think because the use of advanced weaponry during war would be so costly, nations would avoid war altogether. It seems more like nuclear game of chicken that no one can really win.

The participants can cooperate and stop building up their weapons, or countries could compete by expanding and improving their weaponry. This challenge that countries face is often described as the prisoner’s dilemma (Strategy and Conflict). In this theory the participants can either cooperate to benefit both parties or be uncooperative to achieve their own means. And typically most countries are uncooperative and continue to improve their weapons, not fully realizing that their actions are interdependent on future cooperation of other nations.

People who support the idea that advancement in weaponry will make war disappear only want a way to justify the creation of these potentially catastrophic devices. The real motive is to build up weaponry in order to maintain or gain power on a global scale. Instead, these weapons only breed tension and sometimes war itself. For example, in 1898, the Germans began to build their naval fleet. This made the British, who had had the most powerful navy, feel threatened. So in order to make themselves feel safer, the British joined the Triple Entente with France and Russia, making tensions even higher. We can also see that building up weaponry can cause tension in North Korea. After performing missile launches earlier this year, the United States demanded the Koreans dismantle their weapons.

More advanced weaponry has and will cause war. The United States engaged in the war in Iraq because the Iraqi government allegedly possessed weapons of mass destruction. Besides causing tension and wars, weaponry advancement is not just going to be used on combatants in war but civilian noncombatants. According to The Meanings of War, “attacks on noncombatants became particularly pronounced”. Before the use of military airstrikes and air bombardment, the civilian casualty rate was 4 deaths per event, but now it is much closer to 20 deaths. With weapons improving, one would think the precision of military weapons would reduce the number of civilian deaths, but instead civilians are targeted. We saw this at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and now see it in Israel and Gaza.

Countries already possess enough to annihilate the human race and yet they’re still improving them further. The prisoner’s dilemma indicates that this build up is an attempt is maintain the upper hand. But instead, advancement of weaponry creates tension and conflict. Perhaps countries would be better off using the resources going into these technologies elsewhere, like maybe preventing war from happening in the first place.

References:

Pincus, Walter. US Plan for New Nuclear Advances. Washington Post. 4 Sept 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901863.html

Hicks, Madelyn. The Weapons That Kill Civilians — Deaths of Children and Noncombatants in Iraq, 2003–2008. Iraq Body Count. 4 Sept 2009. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/nejm-2009/

Barash & Webel. The Meanings of War.4 Sept 2009. https://blackboard.unf.edu/.\

Strategy and Conflict: An Introductory Sketch of Game Theory. 28 Sept 2009. http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/game-toc.html