Chemical Aspects of Civilian Defense' COLONEL A. GIBSON, Chemical Warfare Service, United States Army Prize winner in physics, Millian, stated that the arms race began many thousand years ago, when a fellow HILE avoidmg the temptation to let the imagina- picked up a stone and threw it and found that, instead tion soar and a possible tendency t o exaggerate of biting a man in the neck, or hitting him with his fist, the importance of chemical warfare, we may reason- he could reach him a t a greater distance and do more ably join with the British soldier and scientist, Victor damage with a missile. That is when the armament Lefebure, in the statement, that "the only new casualty race, or the struggle for improved methods, and comproducers, the real aggressive agents which have de- petition as to means of carrying on war, began. And veloped since the Middle Ages are chemicals. . . Other we have been keeping it up ever since. Chemical warbranches have contributed towards improving, and have, fare was but a step in the evolution of weapons, begun in fact, revolutionized certain weapons. But chemical in the stone age. Each markedly new development in technical means science is the only one which has introduced new casualty producers. . ..It is a solid fact that although we of warfare was in turn decried as tending to make war may employ this term in a general way yet today the more inhumane. However, man has been no more cruel or inhumane in these later periods than when means agencies of war center around chemistry." Why was chemical warfare initiated in World War I ? and methods of war were rudimentary. In every war The reason that chemicals were and are used in war is he has sought to use whatever means his scientific, that man from the earliest times in employing force technical, and industrial development and his natural against an enemy has made use of whatever his natural resources made available to his fighting forces. He resources, his development in art, science, industry, used chemicals as a weapon in the World War because he and his inventive ability made available. When the had a chemical industry that made chemicals available. chemical industry reached a suitable point of develop- The reason chemicals in the nature of smoke and gas ment, chemicals became a weapon of war. The Nobel were not used before the World War is that chemicals of suitable types and sufficient quantity were not available Paper presented in the "Symposium an Civilian Preparedness in any previous war. for Chemical Warfare" at the 105th meeting of the American As a matter of fact chemistry has been a major factor Chemical Society in Detroit. Michigan. April 12-16. 1943. PROBABILITY OF THE ENEMY USE OF CHEMICALS I N THE PRESENT WAR
w
.
in warfare since the introduction of gunpowder on the battlefield in the 15th century. Chemical warfare was a vital factor in the World War months before the first gas attack on April 22, 1915, a t Ypres. The Germans, cut off from the nitrate fields of Chile by British sea power could not have carried on the war for more than five months had not the noted chemist, Haber, by the application of chemical science, devised means of providing nitrates from the air, without which the manufacture of explosives is impossible. The Haber Process for fixation of nitrogen saved Germany from sure and early defeat. As a matter of fact, Germany in 1914 did not declare war until the chemist Haber had made the Reich independent of overseas supplies of nitrates. It is a sad commentary that this same Jewish scientist to whom Germany owed so much was driven into exile and died in deep depression by his own hand. This process of minmg nitrogen from the air has not only affected the conduct of war but has changed the whole aspect of agriculture, converting (previous to this global war) a potential food shortage for millions into an embarrassing abundance. Now that the ravages of World War I1 have developed a food shortage throughout the world, the mining of nitrogen from the air to replace that exhausted from the earth is a coutribution of science that will save millions of lives. Scientific discoveries are neutral and depend for their humanity or inhumanity upon the use made of them. In World War I, a further extension of the use of chemicals by the Germans in an attempt to break the deadlock on the western front was but a logical step in the evolution of weapons. For the first time in a major war a natiou had a chemical industry capable of furnishing chemicals in quantity (as gas and smoke) on the battlefield. The natiou that initiated this use was at that time the leader throughout the world in chemical science and industry. It was but logical that when in desperate need of a new weapon to break the deadlock on the western front, she turned to her chemists. Is i t possible that she may do so again should she be faced with an equally desperate situation in this war? One of the knightliest of General Lee's officers, Brigadier General W. N. Peudleton, Chief of Artillery, of the Army of Northern Virginia, and who was afterwards a revered Episcopal minister of Lexington, Virginia, sought in 1864 to obtain by requisition from the Chief of Ordnance, General Baldwin, gas shells to be used against the Union forces. The Chief of Ordnance could not furnish them. The chemical industry of the Confederacy was not equal to the demand. General Lee's army might, otherwise, have been the initiator of chemical warfare. Since World War I gas has been used effectively by the Italians in Ethiopia and on a limited scale, probably as a test or experiment, by the Japanese. You quite logically ask, why has not gas been generally used in World War II? Is it probable that it will be used by Germany?
To the first question a number of reasoned replies may be furnished. Gas is a surprise weapon. It was used prematurely in World War I, before adequate amounts had been provided and adequate tactics and technique developed. It failed as a decisive tactical weapon by reason of this premature disclosure. If the Germans had withheld its use until fully prepared and in a decisive battle, its use might have changed the course of the war. Tanks were alikewise used prematurely and therefore failed in decisive surprise. All the military schools of the world have emphasized the importance of avoiding these errors in the future. The Germans will above all guard against a premature disclosure of a chemical weapon. We, of course, do not know, but it is a reasonable possibility that gas may be reserved by Hitler for a decisive surprise when the time is most opportune or when other weapons and means have failed and he must take a last desperate chance. At any rate, our only sound and reasonable line of action is to be completely prepared against chemical attack in technique, equipment, training, and psychological attitude. We can do no less, both with respect to our armies and in regard to our civilian population. We want no more Pearl Harbors. To do less will tend to invite enemy use of gas against us; to do that much will tend to mitigate, if not to prevent, gas attacks. To accomplish this we depend in a large measure upon American chemists and upon a sound civilian defense organization and a thorough discipline and training in civilian defense. Dr. Sieur, surgeon-general and member of the Academy of Medicine, in a report to the International Red Cross in 1929, said: "All writers who since the World War have discussed the subject of the employment of war chemicals are unanimous in declaring that chemical warfare will unquestionably play in future conflicts not only an important role, but a decisive one. Here as everywhere else, it would be useless to become indignant with that which we cannot prevent, but it would be reprehensible not to do evexyth'mg within our power to put ourselves on guard against this terrible menace. "But a t the same time that chemical warfare is considered as certain, the feeling is growing that it will no longer be made against enemy armies alone, but primarily against the unarmed population of cities and large industrial centers." CONCLUSIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE C I V I L POPULATION AGAINST CHEMICAL WARFARE
"As a result of the deliberations of the Second Session of the International Commission of Experts, held at Rome in 1929, the specialists having examined in great detail the problem of the defense of the civil population against methods of war, new and still little understood, are agreed on the necessity of immediate and energetic action on the part of the Red Cross. The
Experts admit that although i t may be possible to protect the civil population against chemical attacks alone, yet it will unfortunately be impossible in the future to protect them against very serious losses resulting from chemical attack combined with aerial bombardment. "It will be possible, however, by taking steps during peace time, to protect them to some extent against the ravages of such attack. It is therefore the duty of the Red Cross to inform the public immediately, by means of active propaganda, of the dangers which menace them. Their activities should not stop here, but, faithful to their mission of help and charity which is their only reason of existence, they should investigate and apply themselves from the present moment to the technical methods most capable of assuring safety to the public against the dreadful dangers which they have escaped so far." CONCLUSIONS OF A COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS APPOINTED BY THE INTERNATIONAL RED CROSS, 1929
"It cannot be repeated too often that, reprehensible as chemical warfare is, there is every reason to fear that in future wars i t will play a predominant role and that it will be harder on the civilian population than on combatants. "Moreover, as the means of protection which we have a t the present time do not enable us to thoroughly protect property, animals, or persons against an attack by war chemicals, the Red Cross associations will do a charitable work by making the people aware of the dangers inherent in this method of warfare and in familiarizing them with the employment of the protective measures we now have at our disposal however imperfect these may be." COMMENTS OF THE CHIEF OF CHEMICAL WARFARE SERVICE, MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM PORTER
"I have been asked many times when the Axis proposes to use war gases. There are increasing evidences that they are preparing to do so and I am certain that they will use them when they believe i t is to their military advantage. When that day comes the armed forces of this Nation will be prepared to meet it. Chemicals made here increase the stockpile in our hands ready for use the minute our superiority for waging gas warfare may be challenged. We are prepared, if the necessity for retaliation comes, to hand it back in any quantities that may be necessary any place in the world.% "Chemicals are now fighting the enemy through the medium of incendiary bombs. They have also gone to the front in screening smokes, with a snBcient home guard of smokes left behind to, if occasion requires, mask industrial and other important back-area installations. As for war gases, the possibility of their being employed against our troops becomes more real with the turning of the tide and the Axis growing des--
1 Army-Navy
Award address, Huntsville Arsenal, Dec. 1, 1942.
perate. We know that Germany, particularly, has accumulated large stocks of gas and has trained her troops in gas warfare. There was no occasion for Germany to employ gas in her early blitzkrieging through Europe. To have done so would have impeded her own troop movements. But when Germany has her back to the wall i t may be a dserent story. Then we must be prepared to give as well as receive. And I can assure you that the United States Army is now ready to give its enemies gas warfare in heaping measure if they start it. The challenge is up to the Axis. We can meet it a t any time, a t any place, and under any circumstances. "Though Germany has refrained from gas thus far in the present war, Italy used it against the practically defenseless Ethiopians, and the Japanese have gassed the Chinese on hundreds of occasions. These acts, plus indications of impending German gas operations, caused President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill some months ago to warn of 'prompt and complete retribution' if the Axis definitely wants that kind of a war."a PROBABILITY OF THE DISCOVERY OF A NEW AND MORE EFFECTIVE CHEMICAL AGENT
The requisites of a chemical warfare agent are so exacting as to limit the field drastically. Laymen have a natural tendency to regard any potent, toxic, or irritating chemical as suitable for war use. The facts belie this, as evidenced by hydrocyanic acid (prussic acid). This is deadly in the laboratory but not usable on the battlefield, as proved by most extensive tests by the French Army in France. Under pressure of World War I, with inadequate laboratory and proving ground data, the French developed their so-called Vincennite shell and used tens of thousands against the enemy, with relatively little effect. They were eventually forced to acknowledge the ineffectiveness of this method of using the deadly prussic acid against an enemy. I would caution, however, that new methods may make prussic acid an effectivewar gas. When you have noted the exacting minimum requirements of chemical warfare agents, it will be apparent why the field is very limited. Since the term "chemical agent" includes those substances used in war to produce physiological action, screening smokes, or incendiary action, i t is obvious that all chemical agents need not have the same properties, but there are certain minimum requisites which all must have. A substance to be useful as a chemical agent must have all of the following properties : (1) It must be very tonic, or very irritant, or produce a hrge column of smoke,or have incendiary properties. (2) It must be stable in storage and reasonably stable in contact with moisture. (3) It must be capable of manufacture on a large scale. (1) Raw materials must be available in the Continental United States.
Address. Chlorine Institute. New York, Jan. 27. 1913.
(5) It must be suitable for loading in munitions and should have little or no corrosion on ordinary steel. (6) The substance must be capable of vaporization, or other means of dissemination, in sufficient concentration under field conditions to produce the effect desired. (7) If the substance is a gas under ordinary conditions, it must be easily compressed to a liquid and easily vaporized when the pressure is released.
In addition to the absolutely n e c e s s q properties, i t is highly desirable that a chemical agent possess the following properties : (1) It shouldbe capable of handling and transportation without special precautions. (2) When disseminated as a vapor, the molecularweight should be several times as great as air (which is approximately 29). (3) It should be cheap to manufacture. (4) It should be capable of quick production in existing commercial plants without extensive alteration in existing equipment.
I n the World War practically all the chemists of the world were concentrated for a oeriod of three and a half years on discovering new and more powerful agents, and none were discovered in time to be used in the war. Several new agents, such as Lewisite, were discovered but not developed to the point of battlefield use. None of these newly discovered agents were of a revolutionary character, although lurid writings have tended to picture them as such. All those used in battle had been known a t least a quarter of a century before the war. The mathematical odds are, therefore, greatly against the discmery of a n m and effecti~echemical w r f a r e agent. But it must be remembered that science has often won the race against much heavier odds. The British scientist J. B. S. Haldane gives reasons why the discovery of new and more powerful agents is improbable: "We have seen that a case can be made out for gas as a weapon on humanitarian grounds, based on the very small proportion of killed t o casualties from gas in the War, and especially during its last year. Against this may be urged the probability that future research will produce other gases or smokes which, as weapons, will be as auel as, or more cruel than the chlorine and phosgene used in 1915 and 1916. The answer to this is quitesimple. F i s t , as regards gases or vapors. Only a limited number of chemical substances are appreciably volatile, and of their vapors only a small proportion are poisonous. Now every chemical substance has a definite molecnlar weight. Those with a small molecular weight, i . e., whose molecules are relatively light, are on the whole the most volatile, i . e., most easily into vapor. Now the large majority of the possible volatile chemical substances of small molecular weight, and therefore relatively simple chemical composition, are already known. Mustard gas, for example, was discovered and its properties described in 1886. (Actually its properties had been investigated by Despretz in 1822, by Guthrie of England in 1860, and by Victor Meyer of Germany in 1886, and by Clarke of the U.S.A. in 1912.) There are probably substances of high molecular weight
whose dense vapors are even more poisonous than mustard gas. But the charcoal of our respirators has the property of adsorbing heavy molecules of vapor quite independently of their chemical composition. It is, therefore, somewhat unlikely, though not, of course, impossible, that any very poisonous vapor will ever be found which will go through a mask impermeable t o mustard gas or chlorine. It i g to my mind, far more probable that skin irritants may be discovered which are even more unpleasant than mustard gas. "The question of smokes is more serious: It was the hope of the producers of irritant smokes that they would oenetrate the eas masks in sufficient amounts to cause sneezing and force their victims to remove their masks, thus exposing themselves to greater concentrations of smoke and to poisonouk vapors liberated along with the smoke. This was the-German view when thev introduced the 'Blue Cross' shell in .Tulv. , 1917. Fortunately, by that time our defense against gas and smoke was extremely good, and we had foreseen the smoke menace and introduced, between April and June, 1917, a filter which effectively stopped it in the concentrations then met in the field. It is not, however, a t all unlikely that concentrations of smoke will be produced in the future which will penetrate our present masks. If our anti-gas measures are suf& ciently neglected the consequences may, of course, be very serious." Professor Andre Mayor, the renowned professor of the College de France, expresses an opposite opinion, saying: "The recent war produced a new weapon which may lead to a revolution in warfare comparable to the revolution caused in the past by the use of explosives. This weapon is the chemical weapon. It is doubtful whether the peoples of the world are aware of the power of this weapon and the danger which threatens them . . . . chemical weapons are thus capable of producing the most various physiological effects. Their power, their efficiency, and their diversity are as unlimited as those of pharmacology or any branch of chemistry. The wide range of artificial coloring matters is an example of what can be done by chemistry when it is desired to vary the compounds in order to obtain every possible shade, and thus to produce the most complex impressions on an organ of the senses." Captain Victor Lefebure, British chemist and chemical warfare officer of World War I, expresses his views: "There are thus diverging opinions upon this important question amongst these eminent scientists, but I think a sound line can be taken, fist, on the basis of simple reasoning, and, secondly, on technical grounds. First, no well-informed scientist would dare to come forward and maintain that development of new chemical warfare types was impossible. The maximum claim is that it is a difficult matter, with few avenues of approach, not capable of yielding quick results. "If the issue were simply academic, and we were
-
,.
merely toying with the fate of a minor theory, the risk missiles, but armor against the invisible missiles of the could be taken. We could agree together that de- chemist, the molecules of gas. Each soldier in the velopment of new chemical types was so unlikely that theater of operations is now equipped with a permeable we could forget it. But what if an error means the gas-proof uniform to protect him against the chemist's fate of a generation of manhood, or even of mankind? missiles in the form of molecules of mustard gas, Can we then take a chance? If modern medicine would Lewisite, or nitrogen mustard. The gas mask has been not tolerate such a risk in the treatment of a single greatly improved as to comfort and the effective probody and saving of a single life, how can modern tection afforded by the canister. One of the most important means of profection both civilization gamble with ten million?" against high explosive bombs, incendiaries, and gas THE USE OF CHEMICAL W4RF.ARE AGENTS SINCE WORLD is the organization of the Civilian Defense Corps. WAR I The improvement in weapons has had a great As stated by Major General Porter, Chief of the effect on chemical warfare. The airplane makes Chemical Warfare Service, the use of gas since World chemical attack a possibility a t any place on the earth's War I has been by the Italians against the absolutely surface. There is no absolute immunity to this risk. unprotected Ethiopians and by the Japanese against By the same weapon, the possible severity and scope the very inadequately protected Chinese. In both of such an attack have been tremendously increased. The development of the rocket gun and the rocket cases the persistent vesicant agent mustard gas was projector affords new and more effective means of used. The Italians placed this gas (which is really a liquid) using gas on the battlefield. Great improvements have taken place in the mannnot only oh the Ethiopians but also on terrain which they did not intend to occupy and which they desired facture of war chemicals, thus making vast quantities to deny to the enemy, such as dominating terrain or available as compared with the relatively limited observation posts. It was also used to protect their quantities of World War I. flanks and to drive the enemy out of strong defensive AGENTS DEVELOPED SINCE WORLD WAR I positions which would otherwise have been costly to Lewisite was the only important new chemical wartake. The barefooted, partially naked Ethiopians (without gas masks) hadn't a chance against this new fare agent initiated and developed during World War I. contribution of science to the ancient art of war. We It was never used on the battlefield. Its effectiveness can but wonder how much of the success of the Italians as a chemical warfare agent bas yet to be demonstrated. A series of new war gases, known as the nitrogen against these warlike but poorly equipped, poorly trained native tribes may be attributed to mustard gas. mustards, have been developed and may be encountered The Japanese use of gas against the Chinese may be in the event of gas warfare. These agents vary in but a series of experiments to develop both the chemical physical properties, but their toxicological properties weapon and the tactics and technique which will later are essentially similar. All nitrogen mustards are vesicant agents, casualty be used not only against the Chinese but against us. producing agents, and persistent agents (although the POSSIBILITY OF MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF CHEMICAL most volatile persists less than two hours, even when AGENTS contamination is heavy). They vary from liquids to low melting solids, are The following are the principal developments in colorless to pale yellow, and have faint odors varying weapons since World War I : from fishy or soft soap-like to practically odorless. (1) A great improvement of armored vehicles. (2) Increase in caliber and effectiveness of antitank rifles and Their volatility varies from much less to five times greater than that of mustard gas. Most of them are antitank and tank guns. (3) Rocket guns. (Including the "Bazooka".) fairly readily hydrolyzed by water, but the .products (4) Multiple-barreled racket projector. of hydrolysis are toxic. ( 5 ) Multiple grenade projector. The nitrogen mustards are detected by means of the (6) High speed, long range, and large capacity bombers. kit, HS vapor detector, M4; by paint, liquid vesicant (7) Medium bombers or fighters. (8) Dive bombers. detector, MS; and by paper, liquid vesicant detector, (9) Method of sprinkling or spraying liquid chemical warfare M6. These detectors, however, do not distinguish the agents from aircraft. nitrogen mustards from other vesicant agents, such as (10) Low flying attack planes. mustard and Lewisite. (11) Extensive use of antitank mines. They are not easily detected in the field by odor. (12) The increase in size, use, and general effectiveness of high explosive bombs. Recognition depends upon detection of a vesicant agent (13) The magnesium thermit incendiary bomb and its ex- by the use of chemical detectors, together with the fact tensive use. that the agent detected is nearly odorless, or lacks the Means of protection have been developed to counter characteristic odor of one of the other known vesicants. The service mask gives adequate protection for the the improved weapons, particulary the chemical ones. We have returned to the days of armor, not armor eyes and respiratory tract and for the facial skin covered against cutting and thrusting weapons and visible by the facepiece. Satisfactory protection for the skin
against the vapors or small droplets of these agents is given by service protective clothing. Impermeable clothing gives essentially the same protection against the vapor and liquid forms of these agents as it does against mustard, except that rubber gloves and rubberized fabrics are penetrated with greater rapidity by the liquid forms of nitrogen mustards.
@
Nitrogen mustards act as vesicants or necrotizing irritants to all exposed tissues, including the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. The vaporsare only about onefifth as damaging to the skin as equal concentrations of mustard vapor. The liquids blister the skin more rapidly, but somewhat less severely, than equal amounts of mustard.
Chemical Warfare Agents REFERENCE AND TRAINING CHART
PREPARED BY U. S. OmCE OF CIVILIAN DEFENSE, JANUARY. 1943
