World Trade CenterIntroduction
“ I go to Williams and John Street everyday for work. I arrived at the WTC N, R station just as I do everyday, headphones on, listening to The Avalanches. It was a beautiful, clear blue, cool pre-fall morning. I felt the sonic boom go right through me, and then heard what sounded like a truck tire blowing out, ringing through the sandwiched building downtown, as I have heard many times before. I look up, and I see flames shooting out of the WTC number two, immediately followed by a stream of glass paper, followed by several large, flaming pieces of projectile steel. It looked like a twisted parade. Shock took over, mixed with adrenaline. I, instinctively, along with everyone around me, ran like hell.” This is a story from an eyewitness of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.


Resolved: That the United States federal government should establish a foreign policy significantly limiting the use of weapons of mass destruction.

Definition of Key Terms

There are a few key terms in the resolution. One of them is establish. Establish means to found or create something new. Another key term in the resolution is foreign policy. A foreign policy is a plan or course of actions that will relate with countries other than our own. The last key term is significantly limiting, which means to highly restrict.

Inherent Barrier

Creating a foreign policy that significantly limits the use of weapons of mass destruction will not stop terrorist attacks and/or stop the usage WMD. Before you can make a policy to significantly limit, you must know what a weapon of mass destruction is, because I’m a little unclear on that. Sure we all know that nuclear bombs and biochemical weapons are weapons of mass destruction, but what about what happened on September 11. Who knew before then that a commercial airliner was a WMD? What are we suppose to do now? Significantly limit commercial airlines? What if the next WMD used is a boat, or even a car? Are we going to start to limit car production? The status quo will not stop terrorist attacks and mass destruction because so many things could be used as a WMD and you cannot limit everything.

Quantitative Significance

About 4,000 people were killed in New York by the terrorist attacks on September 11. The status quo could not have done anything to stop or prevent this with its current policy. They had no idea that two airplanes would be used as weapons of mass destruction; therefore they couldn’t limit its usage. Even now, when they know that commercial airliners could be used as weapons of mass destruction, they still can’t make a limit. This helps to show that we don’t necessary need to try to limit the usage, we need to monitor rogue states more closely and tighten up security in places where lots of people come and go everyday, like airports.

Qualitative Significance

We don’t need to worry about many countries using weapons of mass destruction, especially our NATO allies, or even Russia. We need to worry about rogue states like India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea, who are all known for having nuclear weapons. Iran, Iraq, and Libya have been reported to be developing nuclear weapons. Nearly a dozen countries, including Iran and Iraq have offensive biological weapons programs. At the least sixteen countries have active chemical weapons programs. The Soviet Union lost 100 1-kiloton “uitcase-sized” nuclear bombs, according to Russian officials. Also thousands of former Soviet weapons scientists posses the know-how to make bio-chemical weapons for anyone who hires them. (All facts are from “Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons: The Current Situation and Trends,” congressional Research Service, August 10, 2001.)


The best plan of action to help prevent the usage of weapons of mass destruction and stop terrorists’ attacks has three components. First, the U.S should substantially increase spending both at home and aboard to prevent access; inhibit use, given access; and minimize harm, given use. Second, the U.S should allocate this additional appending among all potential activities in a way that maximizes its impact. Finally, the U.S. should engage in bilateral and multilateral agreements with the goal of allocating spending among all friendly nations in a way that