John Doherty Hello Class, Define the nature and varieties of the primary internal Federal Regulatory efforts that govern Weapons of Mass Destruction. For this week’s forum we are looking at the Federal Regulatory efforts that govern Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is extremely important to have law against Weapons of Mass Destruction. The world learned a lot when the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. The world discovered that Weapons of Mass Destruction were to powerful and had to be regulated. To help regulate Weapons of Mass Destruction there have been a few treaties signed by nations to limit the development of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In 1972 the Biological Weapons Convention treaty was signed. According to Graham (2008), “This treaty bans the development, production, and acquisition of biological and toxin weapons and the delivery systems specifically designed for their dispersal.” The problem with the Biological Weapons Convention treaty though is the fact that some of the things used for these weapons are also used for good. This makes biological weapons very difficult to detect and shutdown. According to Graham (2008), “Moreover, the treaty is not supported at the international level by an overarching strategy for preventing biological weapons proliferation and terrorism.” Another very important treaty is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. According to Graham (2008), “The number of states that are armed with nuclear weapons or are seeking to develop them is increasing.” With terrorist groups trying their best to obtain Weapons of Mass Destruction and other countries doing their best on building their own Weapons of Mass Destruction the United States needs to make sure that they are preventing this along with the help of their allies. According to Graham (2008), “The United States should work internationally toward strengthening the nonproliferation regime, reaffirming the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons…” The biggest thing it to charge heavy fines and penalties when a nation violates the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (Graham 2008). By having severe penalties when a nation breaks the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty it will help eliminate threat and keep nations in check. According to Graham (2008), “strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency, to include identifying the limitations to its safeguarding capabilities, and providing the agency with the resources and authorities needed to meet its current and expanding mandate.” Strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency is extremely important because it will give them more power to protect the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. References Graham, B. (2008, December). World at Risk - American Biological Safety Association. Retrieved November 9, 2016, from https://www.absa.org/leg/WorldAtRisk. Mark Metzger This week, we start our study in the introduction to learning about Regulatory Issues in Weapons of Mass Destruction. Through .

1. John Doherty
Hello Class,
Define the nature and varieties of the primary internal Federal
Regulatory efforts that govern Weapons of Mass Destruction.
For this week’s forum we are looking at the Federal Regulatory
efforts that govern Weapons of Mass Destruction. It is
extremely important to have law against Weapons of Mass
Destruction. The world learned a lot when the United States
dropped two atomic bombs on Japan. The world discovered that
Weapons of Mass Destruction were to powerful and had to be
regulated. To help regulate Weapons of Mass Destruction there
have been a few treaties signed by nations to limit the
development of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In 1972 the
Biological Weapons Convention treaty was signed. According to
Graham (2008), “This treaty bans the development, production,
and acquisition of biological and toxin weapons and the
delivery systems specifically designed for their dispersal.” The
problem with the Biological Weapons Convention treaty though
is the fact that some of the things used for these weapons are
also used for good. This makes biological weapons very
difficult to detect and shutdown. According to Graham (2008),
“Moreover, the treaty is not supported at the international level
by an overarching strategy for preventing biological weapons
proliferation and terrorism.” Another very important treaty is
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. According to Graham
(2008), “The number of states that are armed with nuclear
weapons or are seeking to develop them is increasing.” With
terrorist groups trying their best to obtain Weapons of Mass
Destruction and other countries doing their best on building
their own Weapons of Mass Destruction the United States needs

2. to make sure that they are preventing this along with the help of
their allies. According to Graham (2008), “The United States
should work internationally toward strengthening the
nonproliferation regime, reaffirming the vision of a world free
of nuclear weapons…” The biggest thing it to charge heavy
fines and penalties when a nation violates the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (Graham 2008). By having severe
penalties when a nation breaks the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty it will help eliminate threat and keep nations in check.
According to Graham (2008), “strengthening the International
Atomic Energy Agency, to include identifying the limitations to
its safeguarding capabilities, and providing the agency with the
resources and authorities needed to meet its current and
expanding mandate.” Strengthening the International Atomic
Energy Agency is extremely important because it will give them
more power to protect the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
References
Graham, B. (2008, December). World at Risk - American
Biological Safety Association. Retrieved November 9, 2016,
from https://www.absa.org/leg/WorldAtRisk.
Mark Metzger
This week, we start our study in the introduction to learning
about Regulatory Issues in
Weapons of Mass Destruction. Through this week’s lesson, we
learn of the history behind
primary internal Federal Regulatory efforts. President Clinton
in 1994 signed the executive order
12938 which stated, “the proliferation of nuclear, biological,

3. and chemical weapons [weapons of
mass destruction] and of the means of delivering such weapons,
constitutes an unusual and
extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and
economy of the United States
and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that
threat” (Office of the President of the
United States, 1994). It is interesting to think about the impact
that the United States had when
we dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One
of the treaties that was made in
efforts against nuclear weapons was the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty, which was signed in 1972
between the United States and the Soviet Union in efforts to
limit anti-ballistic missile systems
used in ballistic-missile nuclear delivered weapons (Treaties &
Agreements, n.d.). The United
States though withdrew from this treaty under President George
W Bush in 2002 (Treaties &
Agreements, n.d.). The United States and Russia came into an
agreement on the New Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty in 2011, which sets limits on strategic
arms and how each nation reduces
Strategic Offensive Arms (Treaties & Agreements, n.d.). The
Department of Homeland Security
has the Directive7 which is a national policy for the federal
departments and agencies to
prioritize critical infrastructure with efforts in protection from
terror attacks (DHS, 2015).
Another powerful milestone that was done in 1968 was the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
which was a major deal between many nations that had nuclear
and others who didn’t carry
nuclear weapons to prohibit the spread of large advancement in
nuclear weapons, it was not
purposed to stop nuclear weapons though (Office of the

4. Historian, n.d.). In conclusion, the United States has quite a
history behind coming against the spread of nuclear weapons.
The United States has seen multiple agreements with Russia on
decreasing the amount of nuclear weapons. While countries may
never fully discard their nuclear weapons, the least the better.
References
Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7:. (n.d.). Retrieved
November 11, 2016, from https://www.dhs.gov/homeland-
security-presidential-directive-7
Milestones: 1961–1968 - Office of the Historian. (n.d.).
Retrieved November 11, 2016, from
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1961-1968/npt
Office of the President of the United States. (1994). Executive
Order 12938; Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Washington, D.C.
Treaties & Agreements | Arms Control Association. (n.d.).
Retrieved November 11, 2016, from
https://www.armscontrol.org/treaties
Define the nature and varieties of the primary internal Federal
Regulatory efforts that govern Weapons of Mass Destruction.
During this discussion, we will discuss, explain, and gain an
understanding of the primary internal Federal Regulatory
efforts. We will recognize that weapons of mass destruction
cannot be uninvented. However, they can be outlawed, as
biological and chemical weapons already have been, and their
use made unthinkable. Compliance, verification, and
enforcement rules can, with the requisite will, be effectively
applied. And with that will, even the eventual elimination of
nuclear weapons is not beyond the worlds reach.

5. Instructions: Fully utilize the materials that have been provided
to you in order to support your response. Your initial post
should be at least 350 words.
Week One - Introduction to Regulatory Issues in Weapons of
Mass Destruction
This week we will focus on CO-1 Define the nature and
varieties of the primary internal Federal Regulatory efforts that
govern Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Welcome to HLSS215 Regulatory Issues in Weapons of Mass
Destruction (WMD). This course focuses on the legal and
regulatory issues associated with WMD responses. Topics
include: appropriate public law, reporting authorities,
jurisdictional and functional issues that govern organizational,
technical, medical, scientific, moral/ethical issues, and, other
aspects of response. Further, This course is offered to provide
interested students with an introduction to regulatory issues
associated with Weapons of Mass Destruction incidents and the
potential liabilities federal, state and local governments.
Working under the premise that anyone (including governments
and their representatives) can be sued anytime by anyone for
anything, how can we prepare for, respond to, and recover from
a terrorist Weapons of Mass Destruction attack, under such
legal and regulatory pressure.
In our effort to gain an understanding of the primary internal
Federal Regulatory efforts we need some historical perspective.
On November 14, 1994, William J. Clinton, President of the
United States of America signed Executive Order 12938, which
states, the President of the United States finds that “the
proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons
[weapons of mass destruction] and of the means of delivering

6. such weapons, constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to
the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United
States and hereby declare a national emergency to deal with that
threat” (Office of the President of the United States 1994).
The United States Department of Homeland Security (2007)
released:
The perceived threat from weapons of mass destruction (WMD)
has become one of the most important issues on foreign policy
and national security agendas. The WMD threat has, for
example, profoundly influenced the Bush administration's
national security and homeland security strategies. For the
United States and like-minded allies, Iraq's alleged possession
of WMD has become a casus belli. The rise to prominence of
the WMD threat raises questions about the role of international
law concerning WMD in this new environment.
In the post-Cold War period, political and technological
developments created three WMD challenges that rendered the
historical reliance on arms control treaties suspect. First, in the
1990s, concern mounted about WMD proliferation by states and
terrorist groups, suggesting the world confronted increasing
interest in WMD by state and non-state actors. In light of these
increasing motivations to possess WMD, the traditional arms
control approach seemed insufficient to address either kind of
proliferation.
Second, experts argued that the technological difficulties
traditionally confronted in developing WMD were diminishing
for state and non-state actors. Advances in biotechnology and
genetic engineering revolutionized, for example, the
technological context of bioweapons. The arms control approach
had long struggled with the challenges posed by the dual-use
nature of all WMD technologies; and the transformed
technological contexts exacerbated the dual-use problem and
complicated verification efforts in arms control for all three
WMD areas. The perceived increase in the technological
feasibility of WMD development combined with concerns about

7. growing state and terrorist interest in WMD to compound fears
about the WMD threat.
Third, the political and technological developments described
above forced governments to confront the vulnerabilities their
societies faced from terrorism involving WMD. Events, such as
the chemical terrorism perpetrated by Aum Shinriyko in Japan
in 1995, stimulated efforts to improve domestic preparedness
for catastrophic terrorism. The September 11th and anthrax
attacks accelerated attempts in the United States and other
countries to improve homeland security.
The arms control approach to WMD did not address the
vulnerability crises countries faced in the post-Cold War period.
Further, what we know, is that according to Fiddler (2003),
after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the world’s security
landscape is said to have undergone a transformation from the
seeming stability of the bi-polar balance of power to a system in
which not only any nation, but sub-national groups as well, may
be able to acquire WMD. Strategies based on containment and
deterrence, it is argued, are insufficient to guarantee security in
the twenty-first century threat environment; terrorists and
“rogue” nations are not amenable to being deterred or
contained.
And lastly, that Schmitt (2003) presented that,
while their possession and threatened use raise serious moral
questions, such weapons also have profound implications for
international law and security. There can be no doubt that the
world's hopes to eliminate such weapons will depend critically
upon both the evolution of the law and the security perceptions
of states. While disarmament will occur only if it advances
security interests, the rule of law will have many significant
roles to play in shaping perceptions of such interests and in
ensuring the sustainability of disarmament as a global public
good.
References/Works Cited:
Office of the President of the United States. (1994). Executive
Order 12938; Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction.

8. Washington, D.C.
Department of Homeland Security (2007). The National
Security Strategy of the United States of America (October
2007), http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=479633 (October 2007)
Fidler,D.F. (2003). Weapons of Mass Destruction and
International Law available at http://www.asil.org/insigh97.cfm
Schmitt, M. (2003). Preemptive Strategies in International Law,
24 MICH. J. INT'L L. 513, 515-18 (2003) (describing the Bush
Administration’s assessment of national security priorities)