Description
In 1948, the United Nations Commission for Conventional Armaments defined weapons of mass destruction as “atomic explosive weapons, radioactive material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons and any weapons developed in the future which have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above.” In previous papers, I have argued that a stigma has emerged towards these weapons and that the term is synonymous with the stigma. The stigma process is an evolving process. Within this decade we have witnessed the use of chemical weapons and have seen the possibility that nuclear weapons could be used in Europe. Government strategic documents now downplay the term weapons of mass destruction. The UK Integrated Security Defence Review barely mentions the term, this is also the case with the US National Defence Strategy. This paper examines the significance of the stigmatisation of WMD today and questions the role of nuclear weapons in reinforcing the term and the stigma. The development of non-nuclear strategic weapons, as well as technological advances in warfare and threats from non-state actors further highlights the evolving conceptualisation of this term. It is argued that the stigma is still important and efforts to address the proliferation of these weapons need to be reinforced to strengthen this.
