Weapons of Mass Destruction

Introduction

This paper addresses the methodology, and discusses the findings of the research. It also offers conclusions and recommendations for addressing the problem of WMD prevention. It applies the theoretical perspectives of Taylor and Follett and also looks at the impact of having an ethical framework in place. It concludes with recommendations for establishing an international effort to bring about the collaboration needed to prevent WMD proliferation.

Methodology

The method used to obtain material for this research was to search Google Scholar and other scholarly databases such as JAMA and Elsevier using these keywords: weapons mass destruction prevention, cbrn wmd policy prevention, bioterrorism prevention, and weapons mass destruction prevention capabilities. Keywords were garnered from snowballing keywords used by other researchers and described in their articles. These were searched in the online databases and a variety of literature was selected that fit the criteria for inclusion. Inclusion criteria used for this research consisted of any of the following: 1) peer-reviewed resource with relevant content, 2) government resource with relevant content, 3) resources of international organizations with relevant content.

Once works were selected, they were read and reviewed using the method of content analysis. Content analysis is a process of data analysis recommended by Neuendorf (2016) and is essentially defined as the study of recorded communications. It involves the process of breaking down the data into categories of content and thematic groupings, then reassembling the data, all using the open coding and eidetic reduction methods of distillation, which help the researcher to understand the deeper meanings within the texts (Katsirikou & Lin, 2017). Interpreting the data can involve the use of the imaginative variation process, by which one also manages to identify critical themes and combine them with the categorical findings from the eidetic reduction process to create more focused perspective (Gandy, 2015). To assist with the process of imaginative variation, course material sources were used to set the framework for analysis and to provide a position of insight from an academic perspective on prevention. As Yazan (2015) states, this method is about being objective, focusing on validity and reaching generalizeable termsi.e., understanding that can be applied to the issue for the general population.

Yin (2017) explains a five step process for data analysis, the steps of which are:

1. Compiling the database

2. Disassembling the data

3. Reassembling the data

4. Interpreting the data

5. Concluding

Compiling the database will take place during the interview/transcription process. Interviews will be recorded and then transcribed. The data are first disassembled by way of content analysis, in which the information is broken down into manageable pieces. The data is then reassembled by the coding process in which themes are grouped together so as to show the patterns and commonalities among the data. This then provides a field for interpretation. The conclusion brings the interpretation into focus and uses it to answer the research question.

Understanding the method used to obtain and analyze data can ensure validity and reliability in terms of results (Dikko, 2016). It can also help to establish the studys dependability, which refers to the researchs consistency (Anney, 2014). To account for data saturation, the inductive saturation model can be used to comprehensive identification of themes not noted in previous analysis (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2015).

To interpret the findings, the theoretical approaches of Taylor and Follett are used. Their approaches differ and offer distinct benefits and drawbacks that have to be considered. However, when used jointly they create a balanced framework for how to address the issue of prevention at both the interdepartmental and international levels. These theoretical approaches are discussed in this paper as well in the next section, following a discussion of the findings.

Findings and Analysis

Preventing CBRN WMDs can be approached from a standpoint of proliferation and fallout. The former focuses on deterring the spread of WMDs and the latter focuses on controlling and containing the fallout that occurs if WMDs are used. The current situation with the spread of the COVID-19 serves as an example of the need to control and contain the fallout of CBRN WMDs.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provide guidance on a number of preventive and response procedures that could facilitate the overall preventive approach to this issue. For instance, safeguarding the food production chain has to be a top priority for producers, transporters, distributors, retailers, wholesalers and governments (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2015). It also offers guidance on issues such as riot control, which can became a major factor for consideration in the event that supply chains become disrupted and communities and large cities go into deprivation mode (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013).

But what are some of the most problematic areas for this issue? As Ganesan, Raza and Vijayaraghavan (2010) show, chemical weapons are a major threat because they are inexpensive and easy to producethough this assessment is at odds with the assessment of Forest (2012) who argues just the opposite, namely that these weapons are complicated to build and transport. Forest (2012) refers, however, to all CBRN and not just to chemical weapons, which could be the reason for his categorical generalization. While it may be true that nuclear weapons are more complicated to build and transport, the same cannot be said for all WMDs, such as chemical weapons, which as Ganesan et al. (2010) point out are much easier to create and use. Thus, one has to be careful about applying broad analysis to an entire group of WMDs in this manner, as Forest (2012) does. It is a non-technical and essentially inappropriate way to discuss the threat of WMDs and the prevention practices needed. It also shows that the academics and scholars in this field are at odds even with themselvesa mirror image as it were of the contention between the various departments and agencies tasked with counter-proliferation, prevention, and response. The fact is that these types of weaponsincluding chemical weaponscan be devastating, which is why their usage or the threat of their usage in the Middle East in recent years has been such a cause for alarm. As terrorist cells pivot towards the use of chemical weapons, serious consideration must also be given to the prevention of their proliferation. Ignoring their usage and relegating them to the same complicated status that Fores (2012) does can create a gap in a nations preparedness.

Thus, prevention is a two-sided course: it must focus on the issue of proliferation and the issue of stemming and controlling fallout. To do so it needs to understand the difference among the CBRN WMDs and how each can be used, obtained, transported, or accessed. This requires a dual focus from agencies tasked with preventing the spread of WMDs and the containing the fallout if they are used. However, as the research shows, collaboration and coordination are not strong suits at either the domestic level or the international level (Commission to Assess the Organization of the Federal Government to Combat the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, 1999). Coordination at the interdepartmental level of agencies dealing with terrorism and the threat of WMDs has been characterized as particularly difficult owing to the extent to which personalities of leaders and directors get involved (Lang, 1932).

Prevention of the first and second kinds can only be achieved with the right kind of administrative response. However, even from an administrative perspective this is problematic as there is little agreement on what these perspectives should be. Traditionally, there is the scientific method of Frederick Taylor and then there is the management theory of Mary Follett, who distinguished between coercive and coactive power. Taylors foundational theory for administration is inherently coercive as it relies on data, standardization and systems to effect controlled outcomes. Folletts is more democratic, relational and coactive. Each has its pros and cons, and each can provide a view on how to address the issues of prevention as observed in the research.

Overall, the research showed that counter-proliferation strategies are needed as much as preparatory response strategies are neededbut the main difficulty is coordination and collaboration among the various agencies, departments and countries tasked with the responsibility of addressing the threat of WMDs. Personality and policies both have to be considered. Leaders, relationships, the art of diplomacy, skilled communication, practical planning, and foresight are necessary. Administrative approaches will make a difference in determining how effective these outcomes will inevitably be.

For instance, the European Union (EU) is now facing the challenge of dissension across numerous member states resulting in a number of problematic relationships. From France to Italy to Spain to Hungary and on, a rising tide of nationalism has exalted several independence movements and garnered a great deal of support for populists who are fed up with EU policies that they see as prohibitive, punitive, and dangerous for their own nations. Leaders in Italy, France, Hungary, Spain, the Netherlands, and Greece have all been quite vocal about their issues with the EU, and now that the UK has officially taken steps to leave the EU, it leaves the Union more unstable than when it entered in. There is now a great deal of uncertainty about whether the EU can assuage the nationalist wave spreading across the Europe, and that means collaboration with the EU and its member states as well as...

…to follower. The reason for this is that they want their officers to engage in ethical decision making, which means making the right decision morally. Intelligence agencies should have the same approaches in place. Sometimes officers can have an unconscious or implicit bias and this can affect their decision making (Hehman, Flake & Calanchini, 2018). Having a code of ethics in place helps agents to remember to base their decisions on the ethical codes guidance. That way they are not basing decisions on any potential implicit bias they may have. This can be especially helpful for interdepartmental coordination and collaboration as well as international cooperation efforts.

In order for the ethical code to be implemented effectively, agents need to engage in critical thinking. This means they have to ask themselves a series of questions when making decisions regarding the justness of the actions under consideration. They must ask if the action would be legal, whether it will result in a good end, whether it will be practicali.e., have utility; whether there might be a better option that would result in a greater good; whether the action might contradict or undermine another principle; whether the action might violate any ethical principle even if it does bring about some good; and whether one would be able to justify with reason the action if necessary before the public. This all goes into helping to create a cohesive response to the urgency of the situation without undermining the efforts of others or creating a situation where the harm of a few is acceptable.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The administrative principles of Taylor and Follett could be applied among the agencies in the US tasked with WMD prevention so as to bolster interdepartmental coordination and collaboration. The reduction of waste and overlap should be a key focus and the development of a more streamlined approach to the management of these agencies is certainly called for given the evidence indicating excessive bureaucratic waste of resources.

Combining the two theoretical approaches of Taylor and Follett might seem at first counterintuitive but they can be complementary if combined in the right way. Having a data analysis department would help to provide another input into the human decision makers who drive the coordinated effort overall.

As for the international level, the research indicates that while treaties and international legislation can offer hopeful plans and resolutions, there is no guarantee that anything of this sort can be enforced. Additionally, with the destabilization of regions in the Middle East, it makes the proliferation of terror cells more likely, which exacerbates the problem. Rather than destabilizing nations, the U.S. should follow the example given by Russia, Syria, and Iran in working with other countries like Turkey to effect solutions that work for all while dealing with terror threats in a coordinated response. Preventive methods such as these appear to be helpful, yet the US finds itself on the outside looking in, attempting to assert its own will in ways that only draw the ire of other nationssuch as Iraq, whose government has repeatedly asked the US to leave its occupying position in the country.

The reality is that managing a modern representative government among dozens of diverse peoples and nations is not as easy as was envisioned fifty years ago. Moreover, the fact that so many new nations that are only marginally European have been accepted into the EU is an indication of the complex nature of the enterprise that the EU has undertaken. The USs own reputation among Middle Eastern nations has taken a hit, and now further destabilization appears on the brink with conflict growing between the US and Iran.

What is needed now more than ever is a diplomatic approach in which the nations of the world can identify a shard common interest that focuses on common goals. Preventing the spread of WMDs and creating an appropriate response is important and all nations should be brought together for that discussion. However, the challenge of forming treaties and resolutions is that they are difficult to enforce and that at some level there is likely to be a wave of nationalist spirit that rises in each nation.

To ensure a cohesive response, a common ethic has to be applied that will unite both agencies in the US and nations around the world. While the UN has previously served as the representative body for this in the past, it may be time for a new organization to be established that will address the concerns of preventing the proliferations of WMDs. Is such a goal realistic? The recommendation of this paper is to find a way to make it happen, preferably through diplomacy.…