No More CBRNE Warfare

In the last dozen decades, mankind came up with lots of new weaponry to inflict
damage and destroy his enemy. One of these weapons is the CBRNE. It is not a single
weapon per se, but it is warfare. CBRNE stands for chemical, biological, radiological,
nuclear and explosive. They are detrimental to all of lifes aspects as they kill countless
people while wreaking havoc on our ecosystem.
To begin with, CBRNE is extremely resource consuming. For example, this particular
type of warfare requires big labs loaded with millions of dollars worth of equipment, all
to synthesize various destruction tools. In addition, these labs require a specific working
hand, often consisting of highly qualified chemical and material engineers. Had there
been no CBRNE, these immense fortunes would have been redirected to help the world
by treating world hunger, and that working hand would have worked on productive
projects such as alternative energy. Smithson and levy (2000) give propositions about
where the government should invest funds, stating that hospitals should be able to
manage surges of infectious disease patients (p. 330). In addition, Jagminas (2011)
explains how victims are classed and treated according to levels of exposure. He cites the
different facilities ( critical care area, emergency department, immediate, delayed). All
of which demonstrate how resource consuming CBRNE actually is, both synthesizing
and treatment aspects of it.
Secondly, the residual effects of this warfare are immensely dangerous and lethal. Scott
(2004) says, when a radiological weapon is detonated, radioactive debris can spread
over a wide area impacting on a large number of citizens (p. 9). Radiation can involve
alpha, beta and gamma rays, as well as a combination of these. He adds in his article the
various effects. Some of the examples given are stochastic effects, deterministic effects,
chronic diseases, among all other epidemics cited in the article. Furthermore, CBRNE
usage has been linked directly to cancer, as well as hindering normal child growth. Cardis
(1996) concludes, based on a study, that there has been an increase in thyroid cancer in
children, in addition to various cancers in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus, places close to
Chernobyl, which had been exposed to a nuclear factor. So, as explained, CBRNE
residual effects are extremely threatening, and can and will lead to death.
The effects of this warfare also spread to harm the fauna of our ecosystem. It can
destroy our biodiversity and cause ecocide. Dudley and Woodford (2002) say
bioweapon disease outbreaks could cause extinction of endangered wildlife species, the
erosion of genetic diversity in domesticated plants, the destruction of traditional human
livelihoods (p. 585). Later on in the article, they report that current biological weapons
arsenals include diseases that are highly infectious and contagious, easily deployed, and
capable of high morbidity and mortality in human and animal populations. Few examples
of these diseases are: Newcastle disease, FMD, hog colera or classical swine fever,
avian influenza All of these are highly contagious and constitute a big threat to
biodiversity and endangered species.
The arguments presented above are extremely alarming, which brings us to the problem
of taking definite action. I think its time to take a stand against CBRNE, maybe stop war
itself. Its time for the nations to seriously agree and abide by a serious law prohibiting
CBRNE. Innocent people should not be involved in wars fought by other conflicting
sides.