Topic: Measures to Prevent Terrorists from Acquiring Weapons of Mass Destruction
Country: Sweden
Delegate Name: Gregory Poole
School: Forest Hills Northern High School
Topic page: background guide and all position papers All Sweden position papers GLIMUN 2013 committees
Although Sweden has had relatively little experience with the horrors of terrorism, it does not take much to realize the implications of an extremist group with hostile intentions getting their hands on a Weapon of Mass Destruction. However, even that term is ambiguous. What exactly is a WMD? It has never been defined definitively and, though used often, has no universally accepted meaning. It most commonly represents a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon capable of hurting large numbers of people OR causing significant amounts of damage to structures OR causing damage to the biosphere in general. However, even this is ambiguous: not only is it not a single definition, it also isn’t specific. How many people? What counts as “significant” damage? Finally, there is the age-old question: What exactly is a terrorist organization?
Along with the issues in definition come issues with stockpiles. While one might think that nuclear weapons wouldn’t be an issue, as the only nations that have them are very small in number, that could, in fact, be very wrong. It is possible that these bases could be infiltrated and a weapon stolen. However, chemical and biological weapons are more of an issue because of their relative abundance in the world. Many countries have stockpiles of chemical weapons that, though they are rarely used, have the potential to devastate vast populations. Not only that, but they can also be stolen due to the lower security.
The Kingdom of Sweden wishes the world to live in peace and strives to make this a reality. However, no nation can achieve this goal alone. All nations must band together to fight these global threats and, together, they can defeat them. All nations must work towards unity and liberty in this world, both within their borders and outside them. It is the hope of the Kingdom of Sweden that the United Nations was not misnamed, that it can achieve its goal of freedom and prosperity worldwide. To achieve this, the Kingdom of Sweden suggests that the nations of the world engage in further disarmament. While this may strike some nations, most notably the nations in possession of nuclear weapons, as a risky and potentially catastrophic move, it makes logical sense. If there are no weapons for the terrorists to steal, they can’t steal them. Not only that, but there is no sense in retaining these weapons. The only current use for a nuclear weapon is that of a deterrent for other nations. However, if all nations that own them destroy their stockpiles, then there would be no reason for these deterrents to exist. Their only power after that is as a bargaining tool. It might be that the only reason these nations do not destroy their weapons is because they do not wish to lose their positions of power in the world. The same goes for chemical and biological weapons: so many rules govern their use that their only purpose is for bargaining. If these weapon were destroyed, not only would the threat of a terrorist organization getting their hands on one be gone, the world would also be free of the burden of fear that accompanies these tools of destruction.
