Injuries received during the secondary blast phase are caused? Explosive What penetrating power do alpha particles? Alpha particles have little penetrating ability and can be stopped by paper or clothing Thermal injury would MOST likely be due?
This conviction is clearly demonstrated in a myriad of Israeli reprisals against Palestinian terrorist groups such as Hamas and in the United States war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, and Vietnam. It is reflected in the language used to describe the noncombatant deaths, the value laden term "terrorism"1 in the case of the former, and the morally neutral term "collateral damage" in the latter.
The basis for this distinction, it is alleged, hinges upon a recognition of the moral importance of intent as set forth in the Doctrine of Double Effect DDE. Terrorists are acting immorally and are morally culpable and liable for their actions because they intend the noncombatant deaths in their attacks.
They are committing murder. Those who respond to Terrorism response essay respondershowever, claim only to be targeting the terrorists, or the regimes that support terrorism, and any noncombatant deaths that occur, though foreseen, are, it is alleged, the unfortunate, unintended, by-product of a "moral act" of combating terrorism.
Such killing, under a DDE interpretation, is not murder but collateral damage. In this essay I will utilize a rights-based perspective and argue that to kill noncombatants in a terrorist attack or during what I will term a Terrorism response essay violent" response to such an attack is morally equivalent, that both are morally wrong, and neither are acts of war, but murder.
In doing so, I will distinguish collateral violence from accidental killing and from the killing of noncombatants that may occur despite the implementation of reasonable precautions.
Some Assumptions about Rights A right is a claim against others and the correlative of a duty that others respect that right. A privilege is the absence - - or lack - - of a duty.
Whatever their origin, whether by nature or convention, rights are an assertion of human dignity, an integral part of our moral world, and presupposed in the very possibility of a moral community. These rights find expression as moral principles in Kantian-like imperatives of respect for and the intrinsic worth of persons, and within a myriad of international agreements and conventions of war.
Rights and their correlative duties are, in my view, not absolute. Rather, they are prima facie, and in the event of conflict, may be overridden in behalf of a more stringent right or duty.
Further, the use of violence, deadly force, and war, may be, all things being equal, a justifiable Defensive Response Alternative DRA in situations of serious rights violation, such as in aggression.
That is, the use of violence, deadly force, and war may be a justifiable defensive response, all things being equal, to what has been termed in the literature as an "innocent aggressor.
According to Just War Theory7 and a myriad of international agreements and treaties, war is evaluated according to whether established criteria are satisfied. While there are several criteria in each category, the two most relevant to this essay are the jus ad bellum criterion of just cause, i.
It is important to note that the COD, as traditionally interpreted, is Deontological rather than Teleological. That is, killing noncombatants is morally wrong - - intrinsically evil - - and, therefore, absolutely prohibited, regardless of particular situational variations or consequentialist considerations of "greater good"- - calculations of the relative proportion of nonmoral good to evil that doing or refraining from doing the act promotes in the world.
An important functional distinction between the categories of criteria has gone relatively unnoticed in the traditional interpretation of the conventions of war. It is my contention that while compliance or noncompliance to the jus ad bellum criteria constitutes a judgment of value, i.
No one jus ad bellum criterion is necessary for war status. Such crimes against humanity12 to further some goal or objective whether political, religious or social are the very characteristic foundational to terrorism. Terrorism, unlike war, knowingly harms and kills noncombatants.
The jus in bello criterion of discriminating and affording of immunity to noncombatants, therefore, is both a necessary criterion of war and, the violation of which, is a key characteristic of terrorism. That is, the Criterion of Discrimination differentiates war from terrorism and killing in war from murder.In the paper “Terrorism preparedness and Response” the author analyzes a major threat affected by terrorism to international peace and security and undermines the core values of the United Nations.
Excerpt from Research Paper: Local Police Response to Terrorism The Council of State Governments The council of State Governments is a body of representatives of all states, Territories within the ambit of the U.S.
Terrorism response, like any issue concerning domestic politics and international affairs, can be faced analyzing either causes or effects. Terrorists are usually motivated by political beliefs. Free terrorism papers, essays, and research papers.
Terrorism and the Effects on Security Policies - “No state responds to a terrorist campaign without changing its institutions and hence society itself, even if only slightly,” Stephen Sobieck states in his chapter on Democratic Responses to International Terrorism in Germany.
Terrorism Response Shane Curtis Domestic Terrorism Response St. Petersburg College Abstract The purpose of my paper is to explain the actions behind terrorist groups of todays. Terrorism response, like any issue concerning domestic politics and international affairs, can be faced analyzing either causes or effects.
Terrorists are .