News Feature
Chemical warfare: one of the dilemmas of the arms race Chemical weapons are apparently a key part of Soviet war strategy for Europe, but a U.S.-U.S.S.R. initiative banning such weapons outright could be drafted this spring erating ideal, some kind of life-giving off. The issue of chemicals as viable, alternative to the thoughtless and de- weaponry in certain war strategies is as structive heroism [of war]. You have to viable as ever. Why a News Feature on chemical war- begin to scheme to give men an opporThe U.S., after a history of being stubfare at a time when our thoughts ought to tunity for heroic victory that is not a born about expressing any will to end its be lovingly and longingly turned to better simple reflex of narcissistic scapegoating. interest in chemical warfare, along with its times and to the fulfillment of resolu- You have to conceive the possibility of a arsenal, appears more serious than ever tions? The simple answer is that a treaty nondestructive yet victorious social sys- about pushing toward a treaty. The Carbanning this distasteful form of warfare tem/' ter Administration demonstrated that is in sight. We do no such scheming here. War— intent when, after a review of its chemical Chemical warfare is a topic C&EN has and chemical war—is real. The basic warfare posture, it turned down Army not covered in a long time in any depth. issue among those who negotiate arms plans to develop and test the so-called And it being the season for reassessments control and those who plan for national binary weapon. This weapon—which of larger goals, we are taking more than security is to make peace real, too, with- could be a howitzer shell or a missile the usual plunge into the topic of arms out making life less exciting and inter- warhead—contains two or more relatively nontoxic chemicals which when combined control to offer some scientifically related esting. become deadly. The forthcoming Defense thoughts on problems on war, peace, and national security. In less than a week seven negotiators from Department budget therefore will contain William James once wrote an essay the U.S. and an equal number of their no funding for that weapon, which arms entitled "The Moral Equivalent of War," Soviet counterparts will sit down again in negotiators say would escalate chemical which President Carter has used to sound Geneva for the seventh round of talks on warfare technology and blunt any hope the theme for his national energy plan. chemical warfare disarmament. These for achieving a treaty. James took the term in a much broader talks are virtually uncovered by the press, Meanwhile, chemical warfare research context, delving into man's unquench- dwarfed as they justifiably are by the continues under its usual heavy cloud of able need to do something heroic, but Strategic Arms Limitation negotiations secrecy, with the fashioning of new agents directing his martial energies toward on paring down developments of weapons and weapons systems that are unverified something even nobler than war. So- that are truly destructive in the mass. as fact but available to the imagination of ciologist Ernest Becker thought James It is hoped that by spring the two su- any Edgewood Arsenal toxicologist or meant something like this: perpowers will be able to present to the biochemist. There are outright killers "You have to set up some kind of lib- multilateral Conference of the Committee such as the nerve gases and blood gases; on Disarmament (CCD) a draft of a U.S.-Soviet initiative that calls for an outright ban on chemical weaponry, along with principles of verifying that no one is cheating. The draft would form the basis for an actual treaty and presumably would make CCD negotiations easier, since the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. already would have agreed on what each wants, in principle and in detail. The thinking is that CCD would take about a year to come up with a draft treaty ready to be presented to individual countries for ratification. When ratified by a majority number of countries considering the treaty, it would become international law, making the development, manufacture, and stockpiling of chemical weapons illegal. A reasonable time for that to happen would be about the middle of 1981. In light of new thinking about Lennon: security need not be sacrificed chemical warfare, that could be a long way Schulze: seeks reduction of stockpiles Wil Lepkowski C&EN, Washington
16
C&EN Jan. 2, 1978
there are irritants such as lacrimators and desiccants; there are other incapacitators and psychotropic agents that no one really trusts as being effective. The thinking among arms controllers is that the standard nerve and blood gases are the best because their results are quick and predictable. Individuals act in different ways to drugs that affect the mind and so results are too unpredictable to be reliable. The search for a chemical agent that incapacitates without the need for killing still exists in the mind of war Utopians. But the truth is that none are seriously being considered. The curious thing about chemical warfare is that no one seems to like it. One former military man, Lt. Col. Harry T. Johnson, says it simply isn't chivalrous and borders more on murder than the killing according to the rules of warfare. But Johnson is an Army man where rules of combat are held in a certain honor unknown to, say, an airman who with his weaponry can impersonally kill thousands flying miles above troop and civilian concentrations. On the other hand, the Army also uses artillery which likewise kills in an impersonal way. The paradoxes are probably best assessed by J. P. Perry Robinson of the science policy research unit at the University of Sussex, England. Robinson said in a paper given a little less than a year ago that chemical weaponry could become less and less odious as the future of warfare unwinds. "CW lies outside the mainstream of military theory and practice," he says. "Yet, if one adopts a broad historical perspective, this outcast status appears as nothing more than the hesitation which the military traditionally displayed before accepting radically new types of weapons. Flame weapons, gunpowder, even the crossbow, experienced lengthy periods of military disfavor and moral opprobrium before becoming assimilated into force structures and doctrine." The tactical trouble with chemical warfare, of course, is that it may be turned against you. It is cumbersome to defend against it. The gas masks and suits needed for protection make fighting almost impossible. Troops virtually have to sit still and wait for the cloud to dissipate. But military technologists would say that it is difficult to write off any kind of weaponry in the face of new technical knowledge that daily emerges from defense R&D laboratories. Chemicals would indeed be weapons of the future in ways that would indirectly attack human beings or "pacify" civilian populations preparatory to a takeover. It is the official Army position that considerable chemical threats to NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) forces exist today, and the Soviets are continuing to build their capabilities as inherent parts of their total offensive system. The doctrine says further that the best way to deter the Soviet threat is through buildup of NATO's chemical capabilities—for defense and for response in kind. These are the rules of the Cold
Most highly stockpiled chemical warfare agents Nerve gases (CH3)2N\p*0 C2H50
/
H
^CN
3
C
(CH 3 ) 2 CHO
Tabun
N
/
^°
N
F
Sarin (GB) H3C\
(CH^CCHO'
//O P
\
F
CH 3 Soman H3C\ C2H5
