Category: Weapons

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has become a metaphor for 21st-century security concerns. Although nuclear weapons have not been used since the end of World War II, their influence on international security affairs is pervasive, and possession of WMD remains an important divide in international politics today (Norris 61).
The nuclear postures of the former Cold War rivals have evolved more slowly than the fast-breaking political developments of the decade or so that has elapsed since the former Soviet Union collapsed. Nevertheless, some important changes have already taken place. By mutual consent, the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 was terminated by the United States and Russia, which have agreed to modify their nuclear offensive force posture significantly through a large reduction in the number of deployed delivery systems. Nuclear weapons are no longer at the center of this bilateral relationship.
Although the two nations are pursuing divergent doctrines for their residual nuclear weapons posture, neither approach poses a threat to the other. The structure, but not the detailed content, of the future U.S. nuclear posture was expressed in the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), which established a significant doctrinal shift from deterrence to a more complex approach to addressing the problem of proliferated WMD.

The Russian doctrinal adaptation to the post-Cold War security environment is somewhat more opaque. The government appears to be focused on developing and fielding low-yield weapons that are more suitable for tactical use, though the current building of new missiles and warheads may be associated with new strategic nuclear payloads as well. Despite the diminished post­Cold War role of nuclear weapons in the United States, the cumulative deterioration of Russia’s conventional military force since 1991 has actually made nuclear weapons more central to that government’s defense policy.
The end of the adversarial relationship with the Soviet Union (and later, the Russian Federation) had to be taken into account in the NPR. The current nuclear posture is evolving in a manner parallel to the modernization of the U.S. non-nuclear military establishment. In stark contrast to Cold War­era military planning, the 21st century is likely to be characterized by circumstances in which the adversary is not well known far in advance of a potential confrontation.
The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is adjusting to these new circumstances by developing highly capable and flexible military forces that can adapt to the characteristics of adversaries as they appear. This makes the traditional path to modernization through investment in weapons systems as the threat emerges economically infeasible. Modern information technology lets the military change the characteristics of its flexible weapons and forces in much less time than it would take to develop whole new weapons systems. Thus, DOD is attempting to create a military information system: the integrated effect of command-control-communications-computation-intelligence-surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR). This system is inherently more flexible for adapting to changes in the threat environment.
WMD and the means to deliver them are mature technologies, and knowledge of how to create such capabilities is widely distributed. Moreover, the relative cost of these capabilities declined sharply toward the end of the 20th century. Today, the poorest nations on earth (such as North Korea and Pakistan) have found WMD to be the most attractive course available to meet their security needs (Lieggi 2). Proliferation of WMD was stimulated as an unintended consequence of a U.S. failure to invest in technologies such as ballistic missile defense that could have dissuaded nations from investing in such weapons.
The United States’ preoccupation with deterring the Soviet Union incorporated the erroneous assumption that success in that arena would deter proliferation elsewhere (Barnaby 7). This mistake was compounded by the perverse interaction between defense policy and arms control in the 1990s. Misplaced confidence was lodged in a network of multilateral agreements and practices to prevent proliferation that contributed to obscuring rather than illuminating what was happening. Confidence placed in the inspection provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), for example, obscured efforts to obtain knowledge of clandestine WMD programs. NPT signatories were among those nations with clandestine WMD programs.
Without a modernization of defense policy, the ready availability of WMD-related technology will converge with their declining relative cost and a fatally flawed arms control structure to stimulate further proliferation in the 21st century. The process whereby WMD and ballistic missile technology has proliferated among a group of nations that otherwise share no common interests are likely to become the template for 21st-century proliferation.
The scope of this problem was recognized in part as a result of a comprehensive review of intelligence data in 1997­1998 by the Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States (the Rumsfeld Commission). This recognition swiftly evolved into a set of significant policy initiatives that responded to changes in the international security environment. The arms control arrangements most closely identified with the adversarial relationship with the former Soviet Union were passé. In 1999 the Senate refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; the United States and Russia ended the 1972 ABM Treaty and agreed to jettison the START process, which kept nuclear deployments at Cold War levels in favor of much deeper reductions in offensive forces in 2002.
U.S. policy began to evolve in response to these developments. The incompatibility between the Cold War legacy nuclear posture and the 21st-century security environment stimulated a search for approaches to modernize policies pertinent to nuclear weapons. In response to statutory direction, the Bush administration published the Quadrennial Defense Review, the Nuclear Posture Review, the National Defense Strategy of the United States, and the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. Taken together, these documents constitute the most profound change in U.S. policy related to nuclear weapons since the Eisenhower administration (Krepon 1).
The unique capabilities of nuclear weapons may still be required in some circumstances, but the range of alternatives to them is much greater today. The evolution of technology has created an opportunity to move from a policy that deters through the threat of massive retaliation to one that can reasonably aspire to the more demanding aim–to dissuade.
If adversary WMD systems can be held at risk through a combination of precision non-nuclear strike and active defense, nuclear weapons are less necessary (Albright 2). By developing a military capability that holds a proliferators’ entire WMD posture at risk rather than relying solely on the ability to deter the threat or use of WMD after they have been developed, produced, and deployed, the prospects for reducing the role of WMD in international politics are much improved.
The 21st-century proliferation problem creates a set of targets significantly different from those that existed during the Cold War. Few targets can be held at risk only by nuclear weapons, but the ones that are appropriate may require different characteristics and, in many circumstances, different designs than those currently in the nuclear stockpile. The nature of the targets and the scope of the potential threat also alter the character of the underlying scientific, engineering, and industrial infrastructure that supports the nuclear weapons posture.  This research paper will therefore seek to discuss the problem of nuclear devices or WMDs (as they are presently termed) and try to address to current policy issues surrounding the matter.
RESEARCH OUTLINE:
INTRODUCTION:
a.)    what is the problem surrounding nuclear threats in the 21st century
b.)    what are the recent developments surrounding this issue
c.)    what solutions have been successful in addressing these problem
BODY:
a.)    who are nuclear threats
b.)    what has been done to stop
c.)    What can be done?
d.)    What can the US do? What can the UN do?
CONCLUSION:
References:
Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen, “Chinese Nuclear Forces, 2006,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 62. no. 3 (2006): 61.
Stephanie Lieggi, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, “Going Beyond the Stir: the strategic realities of China’s No First Use policy,” Nuclear Threat Initiative, http://www.nti.org/e_research/e3_70.html (accessed June 30, 2006).
Frank Barnaby and Shaun Barnie, Thinking the Unthinkable: Japanese nuclear power and proliferation in East Asia (Oxford, UK: Oxford Research Group and Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, 2005): 7″8.
George Perkovich, India’s Nuclear Bomb: The Impact on Global Proliferation, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.)
Michael Krepon, Rodney W. Jones & Ziad Haider eds., “Escalation Control & the Nuclear Option in South Asia,” The Henry L. Stimson Center, September 2004, http://www.stimson.org/pub.cfm?id=191, (May 2005).
David Albright and Cory Hinderstein, “Uncovering the Nuclear Black Market: Working Toward Closing Gaps in the International Nonproliferation Regime,” Institute for Science & International Security, July 2004,
http://www.isis-online.org/publications/southasia/
nuclear_black_market.html, (May 2005).
Text of “Export Controls on Goods, Technologies, Material, and Equipment Related to Nuclear and Biological Weapons and their Delivery Systems Act, 2004,” Published in Gazette of Pakistan, 27 September 2004, Cited at, http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/ Infcircs/2004/infcirc636.pdf, (May 2005).
Michael Krepon and Chris Gagne eds., “The Stability-Instability Paradox: Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Brinksmanship in South Asia,” The Henry L. Stimson Center, June 2001, http://www.stimson.org/pubs.cfm?ID=1, (May 2005).
Feroz Hassan Khan, “The Independence-Dependence Paradox: Stability Dilemmas in South Asia,” Arms Control Association, October 2003, http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_10/Khan_10.asp, (May 2005).
Ashley J. Tellis, India’s Emerging Nuclear Posture: Between Recessed Deterrent and Ready Arsenal, (Santa Monica: Rand, 2001.)

The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction

The Basis for Today’s Weapons of War.
During World War Two, many types of technology were being invented and advanced. Most types of technology are often discovered by or at least first utilized by the government and military, and there is no time in which this is more evident then in wartime. All countries want to be the most advanced and have the newest technology that would be even unimaginable to their counterparts. World War Two was in some ways, the beginning of a time filled with much technological advancement. All of the more prominent countries of the free world were involved in advancing these new types of technology.
Some countries were the engineers and others were the followers. The United Sates, who remained neural during the first half of the war, were the most prominent engineers of this time of technological advancement. Many new weapons were being used by all of the countries built with technology first developed by the United States. Decoding machines were becoming more prevalent in this War then in any other before. Aviation technology, along with submarines were being advanced. And of the most useful aspects of technology in World War Two, was Nuclear Energy.
The advancement of nuclear technology as used in the invention of the Atomic Bomb was the most valuable of all the types of technological advancement in World War Two. The discovery of x-rays in 1895 was the first step toward nuclear energy research. Wilhelm Roentgen discovered x-rays in 1895 when he noticed that some fluorescent material was glowing that he had laying near a covered cathode ray tube (Rhodes, 42). When he put his hand between the tube and the material he could see the glow was a little more dull but still visible. He could also see bones of his hand as a refection on the material.

Roentgen realized that whatever the substance was that was making the material glow, was penetrating the black paper cover of the tube and thus creating this reflection. After Roentgen”s discovery of the x-rays, in 1896, Henri Becquerel wondered what the substance was that could make the fluorescent material glow. He conducted some research of his own only to discover radioactivity. However, it was not named radioactivity until later by Marie Curie. Becquerel discovered the first radioactive element of Uranium. Himself, Curie and others went on to discover many other radioactive elements.
Radium was discovered by Curie in 1898 and found to emit more heat at one time then any other substance (Walker). Another chemical/physical process was not found that could change the release rate of energy until 1939 when uranium fission was discovered. These discoveries came right in time for WWII. This was the beginning of atomic research by the United States as well as other countries. President Franklin D Roosevelt received a letter from Albert Einstein in August of 1939 informing of German Atomic research and the potential for a bomb.
Roosevelt immediately “… ormed committees to investigate military implications of atomic research (EM)”. In the mean time, the United States, whom was neutral prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor in December of 1941 by Japan, entered the war. The United States were now in more of a hurry to research atomic energy. After much more research, the United States decides to start the building of an atomic bomb, before the Germans (Rhodes, 431). This secret project was known as the Manhattan Project with General Leslie Groves in charge. Locations that contained research facilities were Washington, Tennessee, and New Mexico.
Much research was also done at many university laboratories that included Columbia, New York and Berkeley, California. Many people, including civilians were hired for this top-secret mission. The employees did not even know what they were working on until the bombing of Hiroshima in 1945. The site chosen for the center laboratory in November 1942 was in Los Alamos, New Mexico. Robert Oppenheimer was selected as the director of this site (Hoddeson, 6). The goal to be achieved at this site was to create a bomb small enough that could be carried by an airplane but also contain enough nuclear power.
The scientists at the Los Alamos site were simply told that they were working on a project that may help end the war. Altogether, 5,000 people worked and lived with their families at Los Alamos. 300,000 people across the states were involved in the project. Many experiments and tests of nuclear energy were performed but never a full-scale test of an actual explosive weapon until July 1945, 18 months after a site was established to do so (Rhodes, 667). This site was to be known as Trinity and it opened in March 1944 in Alamagordo, New Mexico. In July 1945, the first successful test of a nuclear weapon was complete.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt died on April 12, 1945 of a cerebral hemorrhage. Vice President Harry Truman knew nothing about the Manhattan Project and was briefly informed of it the same day that he took over the Presidency. President Truman, who had taken over office only 4 months sooner, made the decision to drop the Atomic Bomb on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945. Nagasaki, Japan was also bombed on August 9, 1945. The United States had succeeded in being the first in detonating an Atomic Bomb. The time and money that the United States had put into atomic research had paid off.
Japan Surrendered and World War Two would soon come to an end. The end of World War Two brought along with it another beginning – The beginning of the Cold War. The years of the Cold War included a great threat in which many countries were at a race for nuclear warheads. The Soviet Union and the United States were the most prominent of these countries. Between the two, they had more than 40,000 nuclear bombs (Drell, 132). This made up 99 percent of all the nuclear explosives in the world. This threat lasted until the Cold War ended in November of 1990.
This was done by a pact signed at the United Nations Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (EM). In July 1991, the United States and the Soviet Union also signed their own pact to cut back on nuclear arms by more than 30 percent within a time period of seven years. After the United States dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not only did it bring with it the Cold War, but also the after effects of the nuclear explosions. Although World War two ended in August of 1945, the underlying effects of the atomic bomb have stayed with us, not to mention the immediate effects.
The immediate effect of course included the destroyed cities and many casualties. In Hiroshima, the deaths that occurred the same day and were caused by the blast totaled to 45,000. The deaths that occurred 2 days – 4 months afterward came up to 19,000 (Kondo, 4). The numbers of deaths in Nagasaki were slightly less. 22,000 immediate casualties from the initial blast and 2 days – 4 months later there were 17,000 deaths due to the bombing. This is not mentioning the other surviving casualties who suffer from other effects.
There was more surviving casualties then deaths caused by the bombings. The most recent data showed there to be 73,884 people dead and 74,909 people injured (Kondo, 4). Of the people that died 2 days to 4 months after the bombing, the causes of death consisted of burns, lesions, and radioactivity and bone marrow injury. Many of the people that did survive lost their homes and their means of survival. All of the survivors in the areas in and around Hiroshima and Nagasaki suffered from immense amounts of radiation and radioactive fall-out caused by the bombings.
Some died of the initial radiation, but more died of residual radiation. Of the people that died of a bone marrow injury, it was mostly because the leukocyte count was so low. The people did not have enough white blood cells, the cells that fight sickness and infection, to heal themselves (Kondo, 7). People with open wounds, lesions, died of infectious disease. And others suffered from heat caused by the blast and serious burns that could not heal. It is believed that the radiation resulting from the bomb is responsible for many defects that occurred in newborn babies.
Atomic energy is a very serious type of technology. It is in no way meant to be taken lightly. This is the one type of technology created by humans that could bring about the destruction of all humankind. While it was very useful in bringing about the end of World War Two, it could just as easily start other wars. Many lives were probably saved by the use of the Atomic Bomb in WWII. Had the war continued, many more people from many countries would have died. It is evident that the bombings created a tremendous amount of grief caused by the pollution and medical effects.
Many efforts still exist to this day to treat people suffering from the underlying effects of the bomb and to clean up much of the land and air pollution that was caused by the radiation. Today, there are many other uses of nuclear energy rather than just bombs. There are many nuclear power plants. Efforts are also being made to keep these plants under control and to regulate the amount of waste and pollution produced by them. I hope that we are all aware of the many advantages of nuclear energy and appreciate it but also to know of the many dangers created by nuclear energy as well.

The Basis for Today’s Weapons of War

World War I Weapons and Machines.
Explain why machine guns could dominate the battlefield in World War 1: Machine guns would change the war because of the fast fire rate, the calibre that can be fired and the distance that the gun can cause fatalities. They were devastating to the opposing side because of the amount of casualties that could be produced, in a far shorter time period due to fire rate and reload time. Machine guns were applied to many things e. g. lanes, tanks and trenches they would assist in stopping the advance of soldiers between the frontlines, because of the far shorter reload time in comparison to a rifle or side arm. There were not many flaws but the small amount are quite substantial, for instance the mobility there was either very little or none because of the vast weight, another fault that surfaced quite regularly was the jamming of firing system and reload mechanism.
These flaws were soon overcome with the release of LMG (light machine gun) that was far more manoeuvrable, and was less likely to jam it also could reload substantially faster than its predecessor, but had a smaller calibre. The LMG was dominating during the war for the advancing side because of its compact size, and many other features. During an advance a soldier could drop into a trench and fire upon multiple enemies without have to press the trigger numerous times and/or try and fire using a bolt action rifle which was a very slow means of firing. 2 Outline how the role of aircraft changed during World War 1.
Any and all aircraft in the World War 1 were initially used for surveillance and /or scouting the landscape but as the war matured as did the aircraft technology and they soon became weaponized into fighter plans that could hold an arsenal of different machine guns, either for firing upon enemy planes or trenches. These fragile planes were also used for bombing enemy positions or dropping supplies 4 Use your own word to define the following terms: Sump: a form of drainage used to remove water into a low lying area. Dugout: a hole dug in the ground that is covered and used as a shelter for soldiers.

World War I Weapons and Machines

New Weapons that Changed the Way of the Samurai.
New weapons that changed the way of the samurai A Samurai Sword symbolizes and means the Samurai’s prestige and his skills in battle. It is a measure of his stature in society. To all samurai it’s their prize possession and it is worn proudly by its master – until the teppo was introduced. The samurai considered it as dishonorable to tradition. This changed the way samurai fight and changed their view to samurai swords. The teppo is an example of a weapon that changed the way of samurai – it was introduced in the 16 century in Japan through Portuguese trade.
They were easy to use and deadly. The teppo were produced on a large scale by Japanese gunsmiths since introduced. By the end of the 16th century, there were more firearms any European nation. [pic] (…picture of the traditional weapons used by the samurai before guns were introduced…) The Battle of Nagashino is a great example of a turning point between swords and guns. Oda Nobunaga made deadly use of the teppo at the Battle of Nagashino in 1575, leading to the end of the famous Takeda clan. Guns can wipe out a whole clan in just one battle. It was considered very deadly.
In the movie ‘The Last Samurai’ it strongly relates to the concept of guns taking over traditional samurai swords and guns destroying loyal samurai clans. The film’s plot is loosely based on the 1877 Satsuma Rebellion led by Saigo Takamori, and also on the story of Jules Brunet, a French army captain who fought alongside Enomoto Takeaki in the Boshin War. It also gives an enhanced and better understanding of how these weapons can be deadly to the traditions of the samurai and the changes that are happening when these weapons are introduced. Introducing these weapons to the samurai was a mistake that the Portuguese made.

The samurai would have been better without the guns and weapons that were introduced by foreigners. Samurai teachings can still be found today in modern day society with the martial art Kendo, meaning the way of the sword. Samurai Raid a Japanese Village The lonely village on the Far East side of Japan encountered a group of vicious samurai last week that attacked the tiny village. Many possessions have been stolen from these poor villagers. These villagers were brutally beaten with a bamboo sticks in order to entertain these vicious fighters. They were left with bruises, body aches and pains.
The villagers are furious and wish for revenge on these fighters. [pic] (…A picture drawn by one of the local villagers on what they saw and suffered in the raid… ) The Chief of the village has announced a public meeting with the local villagers to discuss the actions that need to be taken in order to receive revenge on the people that brought terror and pain in the incident that has occurred last week. We interviewed one of the local villagers – he said he lost all his gold plates that were passed down from past generations and were meant to be past down to future generations – he cannot fulfil his ancestors wishes.
He is very disappointed and angry for his loss. The villagers suffered a great loss. They have little left, not even enough to feed a family for more than one week. The villagers were suffering with food loss before the raid but now they have to suffer even more. Fake samurai swords are being sold to the public.. Beware Yesterday morning when merchants come and sell their goods a man in his late 20’s spotted samurai swords for sale. He asked the merchant the price of the swords. The merchant told the man he would sell the sword to the man for only ? 1,000.
The man thought he was very lucky and immediately bought the sword. He took the sword home happily. [pic] (…the image of the sword the man bought for ? 1,000…) When he got home he realised the sword was a fake because it didn’t have the sharpness a true sword would have. He was very angry and decided to go and confront the merchant. When he arrived at the same place he got the sword, the merchant was nowhere to be seen. The man was very disappointed that he wasted ? 1,000 on a fake sword. He notified the local guards – they are still searching for the merchant.
The Merchant was wearing a blur robe, has a long black beard and a scar on his right cheek. If you think you have found the merchant please notify the local guard. Samurai to hold meeting for the production of fake samurai swords… As you know about the article about a man buying a samurai sword the other day and found it was a fake. It has been announced by the chief samurai that there would be a meeting with all the daimyo’s and discuss the action that need to be taken to catch the merchant that was selling this illegal swords to poor villagers. We interviewed the man and he said ‘…
I am so happy that the samurai are following this merchant that has taken my money in return of a piece of metal that is useless to me… ‘ So please if you have any information on this suspicious merchant, please notify your local guard. Nitobe was not the first person to document Japanese chivalry in this way According to the Japanese dictionary Shogakukan Kokugo Daijiten, “Bushido is defined as a unique philosophy (ronri) that spread through the warrior class from the Muromachi (chusei) period. ” In Bushido: The Soul of Japan (1899), author Nitobe Inazo wrote: “…
Bushido, then, is the code of moral principles which the samurai were required or instructed to observe… More frequently it is a code unuttered and unwritten… It was an organic growth of decades and centuries of military career. ” According to the editors of Monumenta Nipponica, “Tens of thousands of documents survive from the medieval period… Only a few have been translated into English, or are likely ever to appear in translation. ” One of the oldest English-language academic journals in the field of Asian studies, much of Dr.
Steenstrup’s significant findings were written for Monumenta Nipponica. In his text Feudal and Modern Japan (1896) Historian Arthur May Knapp wrote: “The samurai of thirty years ago had behind him a thousand years of training in the law of honor, obedience, duty, and self-sacrifice….. It was not needed to create or establish them. As a child he had but to be instructed, as indeed he was from his earliest years, in the etiquette of self-immolation. The fine instinct of honor demanding it was in the very blood… ” Translation of documents related to bushido began in the 1970s with Dr.
Carl Steenstrup, who performed a lifetime of research into the ethical codes of famous Samurai clans including Hojo Soun and Imagawa Ryoshun. Steenstrup’s 1977 dissertation at Harvard University was entitled “Hojo Shigetoki (1198–1261) and his Role in the History of Political and Ethical Ideas in Japan”. The stylings of bushido have existed in the Japanese literature from the earliest recorded literary history of Japan predating the introduction of Confucian ethic from China. The Kojiki is Japan’s oldest extant book.
Written in AD 712, it contains passages about Yamato Takeru, the son of the Emperor Keiko. It provides an early indication of the values and literary self-image of the Bushido ideal, including references to the use and admiration of the sword by Japanese warriors. Yamato Takeru may be considered the rough ideal of the Japanese warrior to come. He is sincere and loyal, slicing up his father’s enemies “like melons”, full willing to combat the enemy single-handed, unbending and yet not unfeeling, as can be seen in his laments for lost wives and homeland.
Most importantly, his portrayal in the Kojiki embodies an early example of the appeal of the warrior-poet. Published by Sephora Hidalgo and Maranie Ing BUSHIDO From the Bushido literature of the 13th to 16th Centuries, there exists an abundance of literary references to the ideals of Bushido. In his 1979 Dissertation, Dr Carl Steenstrup noted that 13th and 14th century writings (gunki) “portrayed the bushi in their natural element, war, eulogizing such virtues as reckless bravery, fierce family pride, and selfless, at times senseless devotion of master and man. Compiled in 1371, the Heike Monogatari chronicles the struggle between the Minamoto and Taira clans for control of Japan at the end of the 12th century—a conflict known as the Gempei War. Clearly depicted throughout the Heike Monogatari is the ideal of the cultivated warrior. The warriors in the Heike Monogatari served as models for the educated warriors of later generations, and the ideals depicted by them were not assumed to be beyond reach. Rather, these ideals were vigorously pursued in the upper echelons of warrior society and recommended as the proper form of the Japanese man of arms.
By the time of Imagawa Ryoshun’s Regulations at the beginning of the 15th century, the bushido ideal was fairly clear, and the term itself came into widespread use. As illustrated by these various writings and house codes, bushido already encompasses loyalty to one’s master, filial piety, and reverence to the Emperor. Bushido includes compassion for those of lower station, and for the preservation of one’s name. Early bushido literature further enforces the requirement to conduct oneself with calmness, fairness, justice, and propriety.
The relationship between learning and the way of the warrior is clearly articulated, one being a natural partner to the other. Finding a proper death in battle, for the cause of one’s lord, also features strongly at this point in history. [pic]Japanese samurai in Armour,1860s. Photograph by Felice Beato ———————– Kendo lessons from ages 6 to 16 First 3 lessons free go to www. kendolessons. com phone master Shitzo and Yoda for more info: 100 200 300 It starts at 6:00pm to 8:00pm with Master Shitzo private and non private with Master Yoda at the morning 8am to noon free food as well. [pic]
Uniforms are provided when enrolled into course New weapon factory sale [pic] 28/29 Convict ST Liverfarm. Close to Toshiba’s land Call Rambo at 1234566787 for more information on the weapons available or about the factory Quick before it’s too late…. Join and experience war Join the army and get new swords and armour. Join now at the Red Cross tent in the middle of the field at Toshiba land. [pic] Contact Chief Yuki Monish at sunrise and sunset: 174635 26337 or at www. joinsamuraiarmy. com

New Weapons that Changed the Way of the Samurai

Should a Concealed Weapons License Be Allowed in the U.S..
As citizens of the United States, we have the option if deemed necessary to possess a weapon and use it for self-defense. The Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution, second amendment states that we have the right to bear and keep arms. Because often high crime rate in some areas may be a reason why a citizen may choose to carry a concealed weapon. Crime is something that looks like it will be an unending situation that is not even close to going away. Possessing a weapon as a use for self-defense will help to protect a citizen when one needs to defend themselves. Others of us feel that firearms play an important role in our lives both from the standpoint of sporting and hunting as well as their application to principles f self-defense particularly when patients represent a high risk population” (Dante, 1996). One may agree that having a concealed weapon would decrease the crime rate but the question is, does it really make a difference? Criminals have a choice about committing a crime or not. “Many believe that restricting access to firearms would result in a decrease in crime, especially violent crime.
Others believe that restricting access to guns would have little to no effect on crime rates and would only trample the rights of US citizens to possess guns” (Gigs, 2009). Owning a gun is seed primarily for self-defense against a criminal and not to mention animals that are out of control. We Just need to keep in mind that a weapon is not a toy and that there are consequences to pay if not used correctly. Each individual state has its own laws on carrying a concealed weapon. Depending on which state that a citizen is a resident of is where it is based on whether a citizen can carry a concealed weapon permit.
The different permits for carrying concealed weapons among states are shall-issue, may-issue, and right denied. Something to be aware about a concealed weapon permit is not all state permits are honored in another state. For example, if one were to get a concealed weapons permit in California the permit will not be honored in Nevada. There are some advantages and disadvantages when it comes to being allowed to carry a concealed weapon and reasons why some of these laws may or may not be so lenient. Some states like Texas and Florida are liberalizing the laws for carrying a concealed weapon. Some states are tightening or toughening up the laws concerning obtaining a concealed weapon. These include Massachusetts and New York” (Dante, 1996). All citizens should have the right to carry within limitations. Is it true that there is a relationship between right to carry individuals and increase in violent crime? In Citizen defend thyself,: it states that the relationship between right to carry and high crime rates are actually lowered (Hood, 2009).

GAO reports that as of March 2012, the right to carry law is currently allowed in all states, except Illinois. The laws aiding these states allow right to carry laws, and the argument still is skeptical of the research behind the tolerance of this law. Despite the research that points to the conclusion that violence is variable, public suspicion points that violence increases with the ability of a citizen to carry concealed arms. However, according to GAO, the amount of individuals issued concealed weapons permit is 8 million citizens.
The United States census states the population of the United States currently as 314,441,706; the relationship displays that less than 3% of the overall population maintains a concealed weapons permit. The majority of the population does not carry a concealed weapon license. The relationship between the aspect of increased violent crime and right to carry does not seem substantiated u to such a low national ratio of concealed weapons license. In actuality, this will show that right carry laws provide a direct impact on preventing violent crimes than the assumption otherwise.
Individuals need to base their priority on obtaining a concealed weapon’s license on specific criteria. Each state varies on issuing a weapon’s permit, background checks must be completed, and the extent of the background check varies with the state. According to Hood, right to carry laws should be evaluated on an individual basis, based on the area he or she is in, consistency of ravel, and prior background. The amount of applications that are denied a concealed permit is under the complete discretion of the state.
Depending if the state has a may issue or shall-issue permit law, the discretion is normally used on the cause for the applicant. Hood explained that most applicants that apply for concealed weapon license is due to the fact of personal protection from a prior experience as a crime victim. A victim that has been directly affected by a violent crime may never feel safe without a concealed weapon at his or her side. A concealed weapon will be useful to he applicant if he or she has received threats or lives in a high crime area.
If the individual lives in a high area of crime, the relationship between fear of a crime and when a crime will be committed is Just reason for the citizen to be granted a permit. In California, “issuing authorities (local law enforcement) told us that an example of a good cause is a business owner who may regularly retain cash on-hand used to pay employees. “(GAO, 2012, p. 13) How frequently an individual travels with a concealed weapon is also a basis of Judgment to consider issuing permits.
If the individual’s behavior produces an unwillingness to leave a weapon at home instead of carrying it across state repeatedly, this might show that in reality the person is not concealing a weapon Just in the high rate of crime area. This basis will work more effectively in preventing the wrong hands in acquiring a concealed weapon license. Simple background checks in some states such as Colorado, allow us to rethink the policies to issue weapons to the general public. The necessity of right to carry and conceal on an individual basis will help avoid tragedies and catastrophe that shame our moral obligation to society’s welfare.
Right to carry laws does not interfere or cause violent crime in society. The presumption of citizens that carry a concealed weapon is the cause of society violent behavior need to be reevaluated based on research in high rate areas. The most important reason all citizens should have the right to carry arms based on an individual basis is because the passage of right to carry law actually lowers the incident of violent crime. Hood also explains that in New Orleans, the percentage of concealed weapons’ carriers and the relationship to high crime is lowered in the eyes off permit holder.
The use of a scientific survey to the general population in New Orleans shows most evidentially when questioned if their city was below the national crime average. In Hood’s survey, 33% of non-permit holders believed it was lower, while 38% of permit holders believed their city was below the national average. However, the fact remains that the effects of right to carry laws vary across time, geographic context, and by the type of crime. Citizens are the variable in each equation and if you isolate all violent crimes into one group it would not benefit the scientific research inhibited concealed weapons.
This relationship is caused by the type of crime, for instance an individual that was mugged will have a different experience if someone was sexually assaulted or raped. In Crime in economics and states, it explains that crime is subject also to the economic state of the country, not just type of crime. If a country economic state is poor, you would most likely see a reaction by an increase in theft. (Bessie, 1999) Obtaining a concealed license and the type of crime has to be evaluated and determined if the crime was avoided or it was cause of the crime.
Citizens that can carry a concealed weapon feel safer in high rime areas. The disadvantage of others that may be harmed due to the fact of a concealed weapon on person is the state of mind of the carrier. However, in light of concealed permit holders state of mind, this group feels the area around them is a much safer place than without a concealed weapon. The reality of Justifying good cause for a moral individual to be issued a concealed weapons permit will be a deterrent for violent crime to occur. Why is Japan considered to be the safest country?
In Japan the crime rate is not so high and Japanese citizens can leave a bicycle unlocked without worrying about someone stealing it. The Japanese Justice Ministry’s Research and Training Institute has, in its 1977 “White Paper on Crime,” compared domestic crime rates to those abroad and says that Japan is by far the safest industrialized nation in the world” (Douglas, 1977). Japan is known to be a safe place with less crime compared to the United States. Japan’s gun-related crime rate is only eleven deaths per year which is unbelievable when we look at the crime rate in the United States.
The only weapons that are allowed in Japan are air guns and shotguns. The process to get a gun is rather lengthy. Japanese law, however, tarts with the 1958 act stating that “No person shall possess a firearm or firearms or a sword or swords,” later adding a few exceptions. (Fisher, 2012). To acquire a gun, a Japanese citizen needs to go through a one day class and passing a written test, passing a shooting range class, mental fitness and drug testing by a medical check- up. The medical reports need to be filed with the police.
There is also a criminal background check that is required for the air gun or shotgun. Once all the requirements are met, you would need to provide all the necessary documentation on where the gun will be kept and locked in the house. The police are required to inspect the gun every year while re-taking a class and test every three years. The process is difficult and in my opinion would discourage a Japanese citizen from having a gun. Japanese citizens do not seem to have any issues about their gun laws.
The gun control and laws are stricter in Japan, forbidding sales and buying of handguns, small-caliber rifles, and toy guns. A Japanese citizen could be charged with holding a gun, possessing and shooting unlicensed bullets if they were to shoot a gun. Although Japanese citizens are limited to owning air guns and shot guns, enforcing a concealed weapons license may not be something that Japanese citizens would consider because their police force takes care of their Job in a manner that one would not require one to own a handgun. Japan enjoys one other benefit that may be related to the low crime rate, an efficient police force and a tradition of citizen cooperation, which help give the country the highest arrest rate, relative to crimes committed, of all advanced nations” (Fisher, 2012). In conclusion, the fact remains that the effect of right to carry law varies across time, geographic context, and by the type of crime. All citizens should have the right to carry arms within limitation for two main reasons. First, right to carry law should be evaluated on an individual basis based on area he or she in is, consistency of travel, and prior background.
But most importantly, the passage of the right to carry law lowers the incident of violent crimes. “As the respective examples of Luxembourg and Russia suggest, the kinds of people who murder will either find guns despite severe controls or will find other weapons with which to kill” (Amuser, 2006). The majority of people that apply for the concealed weapons licenses have been victims of crime. Owners of a concealed weapons license typically view their society a safer place. Plainsman (n. D. ) states “Robbery rates in right-to carry states were rising until the laws were passed and then fell continually after that point. Is there a “Robbery Effect If a person is unstable, then most likely they will not be able to complete the process to obtain a concealed carry license. It’s not the license that causes crime, but it’s the person’s mentality. According to “The First Decade Of The Tennessee Handgun Permit Law Shows Very Good Results By Legally Armed Citizens In Tennessee” (2004), “There are o incidents that can be found where in a defensive incident a Tennessee Handgun Permit Holder shot or wounded in some manner, any innocent person.
There are a number of defensive incidents where a Tennessee Handgun Permit Holder used his or her pistol to defend themselves or another party but, only the aggressor was harmed. ” (Self-Defense Incidents Also Reflect Good Results). Q). If a no concealed carry law passes then that’s only going to stop the law abiding citizens, not the criminals. Just because a person has a license to carry a concealed weapon, does not cause violent crime in society. Crime is created by the state of mind of the person with the weapon, not by the legality of owning a weapon.

Should a Concealed Weapons License Be Allowed in the U.S.