In principle, the liberal perspective and question seeks to inquire if there is any sufficient reason which may warrant a country to mete out mass destruction to another country? It becomes even sad and unfortunate if the basis and guiding reasons for invasion of another country were founded on half-truths and misconceptions (Unger 5160).
Intuitively, it calls for the society to beg the question, as to whether it is prospective or there is any likelihood that mass destruction could ever be stopped. In the natural and conventional sense, there are several approaches that have been fronted to deal with this issue. At the top the things I find ridiculous in my humble and respectful line of thought and reasoning is the use of economic sanctions. It is common knowledge and fact that mass destruction largely involves the use of heavy machines and weapons which have the ability to harm and injure with an unmatched proportions. Thus, economic sanction may not act as a proper deterrent to curb mass destruction, and I find it surprising that it could be considered as one of the