Adam, good job. You have a lot of good research. I tried to look for places that could become arguments. Here is one: i have begun to wonder through out this process what will come next. I mean these three are probably the pinochle of modern day weapons but what is next. There is nothing thats stays at the top for ever. So now i fear that our advances in weaponry will be to great and that striving for such powerful weapons that armys will be forced to probably destroy the entire world.
I also like the language in your later posts where you question the disposability and the consequences of just building these weapons, seems related to your language above, consequences beyond the immediate harm of use. Good job.
kyle

what are the origins of chemical weapons and why were the so necessary to create. Most speculation is that countries built these weapons so that they could compete with the Nazi's. Considering the Nazi's had weapons of these kinds to use against us we built them to even the playing field and that's how most country's came to have so many.



Reporter, Daily M. "Nazis Planned WMD Attacks on Britain during WWII Using Anthrax and Foot-and-mouth Disease." Mail Online. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. .

Goliszek, Andrew. In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation. New York: St. Martins, 2003. Print.

American Ordinance Association. "Ordnance : Land - Sea - Air(-space) : (systems(weapons) for National Defense) : Vol.49 - Vol.50: With Armed Forces Chemical Journal : Formerly: Land - Sea - Air and Space Weapons : Formerly Also: Land - Sea - Air Armament : Until Vol.43: The Magazine of Scientific and Industrial Preparedness." 49 (1973). Auraria Library. Web. 7 Mar. 2012

Is there any way to disarm and dispose of weapons like this? There is a way to dispose of these weapons but like any other weapon it is risky and can have side affects. But to do this one must use soil and or marine bacterial to destroy the agent used. and the military has sites were these things can be done the problem though is the chemicals can get out and then inturn effect the environment. This causes the disposal extremely dangerous and a slow process and in many occasions it is seen that the weapons should just be held onto because its to dangerous to do other wise.

Obstacles to bio-chemical disarmament. (1990). Editorial research reports 1990. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1990062900
Con


ROBINSON, J. P. PERRY. "Difficulties Facing The Chemical Weapons Convention." International Affairs 84.2 (2008): 223-239. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.

Donnelly, H. (1986). Chemical weapons. Editorial research reports 1986 (Vol. II). Washington, DC: CQ Press. Retrieved from http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/cqresrre1986071100

CDC. "Chemical Weapon Disposal Program." CDC Environmental Health. Web. .

what if i expand the topic from just weapons to warfare? Considering of course that the weapons are just a small aspect of what is really going on. by looking through time chemical war fare has always been pretty similar. Some of the most famous acts of this type of war fare came from the Nazis. They used weapons like mustered gas in the trenches to kill enemy soldiers and Jew's in Nazi custody were put into chemical chambers to kill the men. Things about this war fare haven't really changed much since other then the devices used to administer the chemicals.


Dickson, Eva F. Gudgin. "Estimates Of Percutaneous Toxicity Of Sulfur Mustard Vapor Suitable For Use In Protective Equipment Standards." Journal Of Toxicology & Environmental Health: Part A 71.20 (2008): 1382-1391. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.

Schmaltz, Florian. "Neurosciences And Research On Chemical Weapons Of Mass Destruction In Nazi Germany 1." Journal Of The History Of The Neurosciences 15.3 (2006): 186-209. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.

i have begun to wonder through out this process what will come next. I mean these three are probably the pinochle of modern day weapons but what is next. There is nothing thats stays at the top for ever. So now i fear that our advances in weaponry will be to great and that striving for such powerful weapons that armys will be forced to probably destroy the entire world.

as i have read i have begun to wonder what are the differences between Nuclear, Chemical and Bioweapons are. i will look at articles that deal specifically with they other two types and then compare the three.
Nuclear weapons although have some lasting radiation effects there the thing amount sets this weapons is its approximate of total energy and is ability to wipe out large groups of men leaving no trace. Bio weapons use viruses and bacteria to cause illness further killing.

Sims, Nicholas A. "A Simple Treaty, A Complex Fulfillment: A Short History Of The Biological Weapons Convention Review Conferences." Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 67.3 (2011): 8-15. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.



Goldston, Robert J., and Alexander Glaser. "Inertial Confinement Fusion Energy R&D And Nuclear Proliferation: The Need For Direct And Transparent Review." Bulletin Of The Atomic Scientists 67.3 (2011): 59-66. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.

what are some of the health effects of these weapons. I think is were the distinction actually comes from. I will read through the medical reports and look at the different uses for some of these weapons.... Many and most of the weapons used are used not to out right kill but injure. There are blister agents, nerve agents, blood agents and finally choking agents

Goliszek, Andrew. In the Name of Science: A History of Secret Programs, Medical Research, and Human Experimentation. New York: St. Martins, 2003. Print.

I. Rodina, et al. "Composition Standard Reference Materials For Toxic Chemicals And Their Degradation Products In Assurance Of Measurement Uniformity During Chemical Weapons Destruction." Measurement Techniques 54.9 (2011): 1019-1024. Academic Search Premier. Web. 14 Mar. 2012.