Should democracies be forbidden to possess chemical weapons

This paper tends to assert that democracies should be forbidden to possess chemical weapons. Possessing chemical weapons threatens the integrity of a country. Let’s take the example of Iran to figure out how much tension possessing chemical weapons can create for the country itself and for the rest of the world. Iran has already been seeing tense relationship with U.S. and its allies, since the Iranian Revolution that came about in the late 1970s. The threat to Iran’s solidarity increased when President Bush declared it as part of Axis of Evil (WBGH educational foundation 2013, par.2). This threat did not decrease with the election bringing Barrack Obama in presidency. The notion that has further triggered the decision of U.S. war with Iran is Iran’s quest in nuclear technology. Iran’s acquiring chemical weapons, according to U.S., will be a threat to world’s peace. Even the allies of U.S. – England, Germany, and France- are worried about this nuclear state of Iran. … Iran is not becoming a nuclear power (Henderson 2013). and therefore, it will not bear any threats from the external world, still threats prevail because Iran has been making military purchases from Washington and Gulf Arab, and has been making military maneuvers. This shows how being involved in and possessing chemical weapons threatens the stability and integrity of a country. Moreover, possessing chemical weapons creates a sense of hostility among countries of the world. USA has already entered into wars with a number of countries due to this reason, and this has destabilized those countries and has also put damaging effects upon the American economy. Entering into conflict disrupts the peace, not only of Iran but also of U.S., who has already lost the lives of many of its soldiers in military actions against Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans will never tolerate if the correct number of casualties of American soldiers in the war on terror is revealed to them (Nouraee 2010). The environment of hostility brought about by chemical weapons only increases hatred, and encourages the residents of the attacked country to develop rebellious feelings. This does not help decrease terrorism, but increases violence and radical hostility. It only turns into a global hate combat. Also, U.S. has already been suffering from financial burden because of heavy budgets being assigned to war on terror. The sense of confrontation has been prevailing throughout the world because of the possession of chemical weapons by some countries, and this unhealthy environment poses risk to economies and social statuses of countries. Possession of chemical weapons should also be forbidden because it increases the chances of warfare. Let’s understand what the ultimate objective behind the possession of