Is a worldwide ban on weapons of mass destruction an attainable goal?

Depending on what we are, the answers may well vary, and they all make sense, but in my view, banning weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, is rather a remote goal. I hold this view for mainly three reasons.

First, tensions between the US and Russia seem to have increased since the Ukraine conflict. Both countries possess most of the world’s nuclear weapons as a deterrent, and neither wants to denuclearize because nuclear deterrence is part of their security strategy. They also oppose nuclear abolition.

Next, some rogue governments and terrorist groups seek WMDs, including chemical weapons to gain a presence in the international community. Even if an international agreement banning WMDs were to go into effect, terrorists would still ignore it. In the case of Syria, the government reportedly used chemical weapons against its own citizens.

In addition, some countries are suspected of attempting to develop WMDs. For example, despite criticism and sanctions, North Korea and Iran continue to pursue nuclear warheads. It is practically impossible to make them that do not follow the international order destroy their WMDs.

In conclusion, I am not convinced that banning WMD worldwide is an attainable goal based on the reasons mentioned above. (200 words)