chemical weapon

Introduction

      any of several chemical compounds, usually toxic agents, that are intended to kill, injure, or incapacitate enemy personnel. In modern warfare, chemical weapons were first used in World War I (1914–18), during which gas warfare inflicted more than one million of the casualties suffered by combatants in that conflict and killed an estimated 90,000. In the years since then, chemical arms have been employed numerous times, most notably in the Iran-Iraq War (1980–88). The United States and the Soviet Union, during their decades of confrontation in the Cold War (1945–91), built up enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons. The end of the Cold War enabled these former adversaries to agree to ban all chemical weapons of the types that were developed during World War I (first generation), World War II (second generation), and the Cold War (third generation).

      Like nuclear weapons (nuclear weapon) and biological weapons (biological weapon), chemical weapons are often classified as weapons of mass destruction (weapon of mass destruction). Under the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) of 1993, the use of chemical weapons in war is prohibited, as is all development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, and transfer of such weapons. Nevertheless, while the aim of the CWC is complete elimination of most types of chemical weapons, not all countries have abandoned their chemical warfare capabilities. In particular, some weaker states have pursued chemical weapons programs as deterrents to being attacked by enemies that have either stronger conventional forces or their own weapons of mass destruction, and some regimes have used chemical weapons to threaten especially vulnerable foes outside and even within their own borders.

      Furthermore, some individuals and militant organizations have acquired or have sought to acquire chemical weapons in order to attack their enemies or to secure their own ends through terror. The continued threat from chemical weapons has led many states to prepare defenses against them and to exert diplomatic pressure on dissenting or noncompliant states to abide by the CWC.

Types of chemical weapons

      Chemical weapons are chemical agents, whether gaseous, liquid, or solid, that are employed because of their direct toxic effects on humans, animals, and plants. They inflict damage when inhaled, absorbed through the skin, or ingested in food or drink. Chemical agents become weapons when they are placed into artillery shells, land mines, aerial bombs, missile warheads, mortar shells, grenades, spray tanks, or any other means of delivering the agents to designated targets.

      Not all poisonous substances are considered suitable for weaponization, or use as chemical weapons. Thousands of such chemical compounds exist, but only a few dozen have been used as chemical warfare agents since 1900. The compounds of most utility must be highly toxic but not too difficult to handle. Furthermore, the chemical must be able to withstand the heat developed when delivered in a bursting shell, bomb, mine, or warhead. Finally, it must be resistant to water and oxygen in the atmosphere in order to be effective when dispersed.

Chemical agents

      Since World War I, several types of chemical agents have been developed into weapons. These include choking agents, blister agents, blood agents, nerve agents, incapacitants, riot-control agents, and herbicides.

Choking agents

      Choking agents were employed first by the German army and later by the Allied forces in World War I. The first massive use of chemical weapons in that conflict came when the Germans released chlorine gas from thousands of cylinders along a 6-km (4-mile) front at Ypres, Belg., on April 22, 1915, creating a wind-borne chemical cloud that opened a major breach in the lines of the unprepared French and Algerian units. The Germans were not prepared to exploit the opening, though, which gave the French and Algerians time to rush reinforcements into the line. Eventually both sides mastered the new techniques of using choking agents such as chlorine, phosgene, diphosgene, chloropicrin, ethyldichlorasine, and perfluoroisoboxylene and launched numerous attacks—though without any militarily significant breakthroughs once each side had introduced the first crude gas masks (gas mask) and other protective measures. Phosgene was responsible for roughly 80 percent of all deaths caused by chemical arms in World War I.

      Choking agents are delivered as gas clouds to the target area, where individuals become casualties through inhalation of the vapour. The toxic agent triggers the immune system, causing fluids to build up in the lungs, which can cause death through asphyxiation or oxygen deficiency if the lungs are badly damaged. The effect of the chemical agent, once an individual is exposed to the vapour, may be immediate or can take up to three hours. A good protective gas mask is the best defense against choking agents.

Blister agents

      Blister agents were also developed and deployed in World War I. The primary form of blister agent used in that conflict was sulfur mustard, popularly known as mustard gas. Casualties were inflicted when personnel were attacked and exposed to blister agents like sulfur mustard or lewisite. Delivered in liquid or vapour form, such weapons burned the skin, eyes, windpipe, and lungs. The physical results, depending on level of exposure, might be immediate or might appear after several hours. Although lethal in high concentrations, blister agents seldom kill. Modern blister agents include sulfur mustard, nitrogen mustard, phosgene oxime, phenyldichlorarsine, and lewisite. Protection against blister agents requires an effective gas mask and protective overgarments.

Blood agents

      Blood agents, such as hydrogen cyanide or cyanogen chloride, are designed to be delivered to the targeted area in the form of a vapour. When inhaled, these agents prevent the transfer of oxygen to the cells, causing the body to asphyxiate. Such chemicals block the enzyme that is necessary for aerobic metabolism, thereby denying oxygen to the red blood cells, which has an immediate effect similar to that of carbon monoxide. Cyanogen inhibits the proper utilization of oxygen within the blood cells, thereby “starving” and damaging the heart. The best defense against blood agents is an effective gas mask.

Nerve agents

      The most lethal and important chemical weapons contain nerve agents, which affect the transmission of impulses through the nervous system. A single drop on the skin or inhaled into the lungs can cause the brain centres controlling respiration to shut down and muscles, including the heart and diaphragm, to become paralyzed. Poisoning by nerve agents causes intense sweating, filling of the bronchial passages with mucus, dimming of vision, uncontrollable vomiting and defecation, convulsions, and finally paralysis and respiratory failure. Death results from asphyxia, generally within a few minutes of respiratory exposure or within hours if exposure was through a liquid nerve agent on the skin. Defense against nerve agents requires a skintight gas mask and special protective overgarments.

      In the mid-1930s chemists working for the German chemical corporation IG Farben developed the first organophosphorus compound with an extremely high toxicity; this became the nerve agent known as tabun (GA). As much as 12,000 tons was produced for the German army in World War II, although it was never used. Another nerve agent, sarin (GB), was first produced in 1938, and a third, soman (GD), was introduced in 1944; both were also invented in Germany. These three German nerve agents, the G-series (for German) in U.S. nomenclature, were all seized in large quantities by the Allies at the end of World War II. After the war the United States, the Soviet Union (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), and a number of other states also produced these and other nerve agents as weapons.

      VX, the most famous of the so-called V-series of persistent nerve agents (and also the deadliest known nerve agent; V is for venom), was developed by chemists at a British government facility in 1952. Britain renounced all chemical and biological weapons in 1956 but traded information on the production of VX with the United States in exchange for technical information on the production of thermonuclear bombs (thermonuclear bomb). In 1961 the United States began large-scale production of VX. The only other countries believed to have built up VX arsenals were the Soviet Union, France, and Syria. Following the signing of the CWC in 1993, the United States and Russia began the elimination of their chemical weapons stocks, with a goal of finishing the process by 2012; neither country trains its forces with such weapons at present.

      Defense against nerve agents requires a skintight mask and effective protective overgarments.

Incapacitants

      A good deal of work has been done on chemicals that can incapacitate, disorient, or paralyze opponents. Experiments have been conducted on a number of hallucinogenic drug (drug use) compounds—for instance, 3-quinuclidinyl benzilate (BZ), LSD (lysergic acid diethylamide), mescaline, and methaqualone—and at one time the U.S. Army fielded BZ weapons. These chemical weapons are designed not to kill; however, even incapacitants can cause permanent injury or loss of life if employed in high dosages or if they cause accidents.

      BZ or LSD may attack the nervous system and derange a victim's mental processes, causing, for example, hallucinations or psychotic thinking. Other incapacitants might cause victims to sleep or to be slow to respond.

Riot-control agents

       tear gas and vomiting agents have been produced to control riots and unruly crowds. Commonly used tear gases are chloracetophenone (CN), chloropicrin (PS), dibenz (b, f)-1, 4-oxazepine (CR), and o-chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile (CS). CN, the principal component of the aerosol agent Mace, affects chiefly the eyes. PS and CS are stronger irritants that can burn the skin, eyes, and respiratory tract. Such riot-control agents are banned by the CWC if used as “a method of warfare” but are allowed for domestic police enforcement.

      Although the United States signed and ratified the CWC, it has reserved the right to use riot-control agents in certain other situations, including counterterrorist and hostage rescue operations, noncombatant rescue operations outside war zones, peacekeeping operations where the receiving state has authorized the use of force, and military operations against nonstate actors initiating armed conflict.

Herbicides (herbicide)

      Herbicides (herbicide) are not banned by the CWC unless they are used as “a method of warfare.” However, not all state parties to the CWC consider herbicides to be chemical weapons, and these states, therefore, do not recognize their use to be banned by the treaty.

      States can attach reservations if they do not directly undermine the essential purposes of the treaty. In this case, the regulation of nonlethal herbicides is less essential than the more dangerous CW agents.

      Herbicides can be used to destroy enemy crops and foliage cover. For example, Agent Orange was used extensively by U.S. forces between 1962 and 1971, during the Vietnam War, as a defoliant to deny cover in the jungle to the Viet Cong and to North Vietnamese forces. Other herbicides, such as paraquat, Agent White (picloram and 2,4-D), and Agent Blue (dimethyl arsenic acid), have also been produced to act as chemical weapons.

Properties of chemical weapons

      Chemical weapons can be categorized by their physical characteristics, such as lethality, persistency, mode of action on the human body, and physical state (i.e., gas, liquid, or solid) when being delivered.

      Some chemical agents are highly lethal. For example, nerve agents such as sarin, tabun, soman, and VX can kill almost instantly; a few droplets absorbed through the skin can paralyze and cause death in minutes. At the other end of the lethality spectrum are chemical agents, such as tear gas, that only act as irritants or incapacitants and are unlikely to kill unless used in very large quantities.

      Chemical agents also have varied levels of persistency. Some evaporate in minutes or hours and lose their effect rapidly. For example, sarin is a lethal but nonpersistent nerve agent. By contrast, VX can persist for days or weeks in lethal form. This difference in persistency may lead to a different strategic or tactical use of each agent in wartime. A military force may use persistent chemical weapons, such as VX or mustard, to neutralize an air base, seaport, or key staging area for an extended period in order to deny its use to the adversary. On the other hand, nonpersistent chemical weapons, such as sarin, more likely would be employed where only a temporary effect was sought. For example, nonpersistent chemical weapons could be used to breach an enemy line at a point that one's own forces might want to pass through or occupy after the effects had dissipated.

      Some poison gases, such as chlorine and hydrogen cyanide, enter the victim's lungs during inhalation. On the other hand, nerve agent droplets might enter through the skin into the bloodstream and nervous system. Still other chemicals can be mixed with food in order to poison enemy personnel when they take their meals.

      Finally, chemical weapons might be delivered as aerosols, mortars, artillery shells, missile warheads, mines, or aerial bombs. Most of these have all the ingredients premixed, but newer chemical arms may be so-called binary weapons in which the ingredients are mixed in flight while the weapon is being delivered. Binary weapons are safer and easier to store and handle than more traditional chemical arms.

Defense against chemical weapons

On the battlefield

      Since World War I the military organizations of all the great powers have acquired defensive equipment to cope with emerging offensive chemical weapons. The first and most important line of defense against chemical agents is the individual protection provided by gas masks (gas mask) and protective clothing and the collective protection of combat vehicles and mobile or fixed shelters. Filters for masks and shelters contain specially treated activated charcoal, to remove vapours, and paper membranes or other materials, to remove particles. Such filters typically can reduce the concentration of chemical agents by a factor of at least 100,000. Masks can be donned in less than 10 seconds and can be worn for long periods, even in sleep. Modern protective overgarments are made of fabric containing activated charcoal or other adsorptive forms of carbon. A complete suit typically weighs about 2 kg (4.4 pounds). The fabric can breathe and pass water vapour perspiration. In warm weather, periods of heavy exertion in full protective gear would have to be limited in order to avoid heat stress. Also, removing such gear in a contaminated environment would raise the risk of becoming a casualty or fatality, and so gear must be removed within toxic-free shelters after following decontamination procedures at the shelter entrance.

      Chemical detectors have been developed to help identify levels and places of contamination. These include chemically treated litmus paper used to determine the presence of chemical agents. Other sensors may include handheld assays, vehicles equipped with scoops and laboratory analysis tools, and both point and standoff sensors. Automatic field alarm systems are employed by some military forces to alert personnel to the presence of chemical agents.

      Well-equipped troops are supplied with hypodermic needles filled with antidotes to be administered in the event of toxic poisoning from nerve agents. For example, atropine shots can be injected to fight the effects of nerve gas exposures, and different medicines are available to treat casualties.

      A number of methods have been found useful in decontaminating areas and people covered with chemical agents, including spraying with supertropical bleach (chlorinated lime) or washing contaminated surfaces or garments with warm soapy water. The challenge is finding and using a decontamination solution that is strong enough to neutralize the chemical agent without damaging the equipment or harming the personnel.

      In some military forces, modular field hospitals have been developed that are stocked with resuscitation devices for respiratory support and other necessary equipment, decontamination solutions, and staff trained to decontaminate chemical warfare casualties. Collective protective shelters, complete with filters for airflow systems, have been provided to shield personnel in an otherwise contaminated area. Such shelters can provide a toxic-free area for personnel to change clothes, get medical attention, sleep, and take care of bodily functions with less danger of exposure to lethal chemicals.

      Chemical agents used against unprotected forces can cause high casualties, fear, and confusion. Thus, personnel facing adversaries equipped with chemical weapons must be trained to don individual protective equipment, seek cover in collective protection shelters, avoid contaminated areas, and rapidly decontaminate personnel and equipment that have been exposed. However, such measures, while necessary to protect against chemical attacks, may expose protected forces to greater casualties from conventional weapons fire and lead to a loss of conventional combat effectiveness. Indeed, exercises have shown that conventional combat effectiveness can be decreased by 25 percent or more for military forces compelled to operate in masks, protective overgarments, special gloves, and boots. This is especially true if temperatures are high and forces are required to stay sealed in their gear for many hours or days without relief. Prolonged wearing of individual protective equipment can lead to stress, fatigue, disorientation, confusion, frustration, and irritability. Also, heat can build up and lead to dehydration. Thus, there is generally a trade-off between protecting one's force through chemical-protection gear and maintaining conventional fighting effectiveness.

In civilian defense

      While most military forces have at least some defense against chemical attack, this is not the case for most civilian populations, which typically have no individual protective equipment (masks, overgarments, boots, or gloves) or collective protection shelters. One notable exception is Israel, which has been at war numerous times since its independence in 1948. Israeli citizens are assigned their own gas masks, and new buildings in Israel must contain a reinforced shelter. Israel also conducts civil defense exercises on a regular basis in order to prepare its citizens for attack.

      A further problem for almost every country is the presence in most urban centres of storage or manufacturing facilities that contain toxic industrial chemicals and other toxic materials. A conventional attack on such a site would be the functional equivalent of a chemical weapons attack. Most countries do not have adequate security around such areas.

      One response to the threat of a chemical weapons attack on civilian society has been the creation of active, well-trained emergency response teams that know how to identify chemical agents, decontaminate areas and people exposed to chemical weapons, and coordinate rescue operations. Cognizant of the growing risk posed by weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the United States in 1998 authorized the creation of 10 National Guard WMD Civil Support Teams (WMD-CST) within its territory; each team was organized, trained, and equipped to handle chemical emergencies in support of local police, firefighters, medical personnel, and other first responders. In subsequent years, dozens of new WMD-CST were authorized, with plans for eventually certifying units for every state and some U.S. protectorates. In addition, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control maintains the Strategic National Stockpile, which contains medical supplies and equipment positioned around the country to provide medical help in emergencies, including a chemical weapons attack.

Chemical weapons in history

Antiquity

      The use of chemical weapons dates back to antiquity, when warring forces frequently poisoned the water supplies of their adversaries. For example, the Athenians poisoned the wells of their rivals as early as 600 BC, and the Spartans, their chief antagonists, in turn hurled burning sulfur pitch over the walls of Athens in 423 BC. In AD 673 the Byzantines defended Constantinople from the Saracen navy by igniting chemicals (known as Greek fire) floating in the sea. During the Middle Ages, Genghis Khan's Mongolian forces employed chemical warfare when they catapulted burning pitch and sulfur into cities they besieged.

Weapons of mass destruction (weapon of mass destruction)

 Chemical weapons did not become true weapons of mass destruction (WMD) until they were introduced in their modern form in World War I (1914–18). The German army initiated modern chemical warfare by launching a chlorine attack at Ypres, Belg., on April 22, 1915, killing 5,000 French and Algerian troops and momentarily breaching their lines of defense. German use of gas and mustard was soon countered by similar tactics from the Allies. By war's end, both sides had used massive quantities of chemical weapons, causing an estimated 1,300,000 casualties, including 91,000 fatalities. The Russian army suffered about 500,000 of these casualties, and the British had 180,000 wounded or killed by chemical arms. One-third of all U.S. casualties in World War I were from mustard and other chemical gases, roughly the ratio for all participants combined. By the war's end, all the great powers involved had developed not only offensive chemical arms but also crude gas masks and protective overgarments to defend themselves against chemical weapon attacks. Altogether, the warring states employed more than two dozen different chemical agents during World War I, including mustard gas, which caused perhaps as many as 90 percent of all chemical casualties (though very few of these casualties were fatal) from that conflict.

      Other choking gas agents used included chlorine, phosgene, diphosgene, and chloropicrin. The blood agents included hydrogen cyanide, cyanogen, chlorine, and cyanogen bromide. Arsenic-laced sneeze agents were also used, as were tear gases (tear gas) like ethyl bromoacetate, bromoacetone, and bromobenzyl cyanide.

      The horrific casualties of World War I helped persuade many world leaders of the need to ban the use of chemical weapons. A number of proposals were made during the 1920s, and at the 1925 Geneva Conference for the Supervision of the International Traffic in Arms (see Geneva Conventions) a protocol was approved and signed by most of the world's states. The 1925 Geneva Protocol made it illegal to employ chemical or biological weapons, though the ban extended only to those who signed the treaty. The Geneva Protocol did not ban the production, acquisition, stockpiling, or transfer of such arms, and, critically, it did not contain any verification procedure to ensure compliance.

      Despite the popular reaction against this form of warfare and the international agreement banning the use of chemical weapons, chemical arms were used a number of times in the years between the two World Wars. For example, chemical weapons were employed by British forces in the Russian Civil War (1919), Spanish forces in Morocco (1923–26), Italian forces in Libya (1930), Soviet troops in Xinjiang (1934), and Italian forces in Ethiopia (1935–40).

      During the Sino-Japanese War (1937–45), Japanese forces employed riot-control agents, phosgene, hydrogen cyanide, lewisite, and mustard agents extensively against Chinese targets. There is no record of chemical warfare among World War II belligerents other than that of the Japanese. The Axis forces in Europe and the Allied forces adopted no-first-use policies, though each side was ready to respond in kind if the other acted first. Indeed, all the major powers developed extensive chemical warfare capabilities as a deterrent to their use.

      After World War II, chemical weapons were employed on a number of occasions. Egyptian military forces, participating in Yemen's civil war between royalists and republicans, used chemical weapons, such as nerve and mustard agents, in 1963, 1965, and 1967. During the Soviet intervention into the Afghan War (1978–92), chemical arms, such as mustard and incapacitating agents, were used against the mujahideen rebels. In 1987 Libya used mustard munitions against rebels in Chad. The most extensive post-World War II use of chemical weapons occurred during the Iran-Iraq War (1980–88), in which Iraq used the nerve agents sarin and tabun, as well as riot-control agents and blister agents like sulfur mustard, resulting in tens of thousands of Iranian casualties. Chemical weapons enabled Iraq to avoid defeat, though not obtain victory, against the more numerous Iranian forces. In response to Iraq's use of chemical weapons, Iran made efforts to develop chemical weapons and may have used them against Iraq, a contention that Iran has denied. Furthermore, Iran claims to have ended its program when it signed (1993) and ratified (1997) the CWC. Iraq also used chemical weapons (thought to be hydrogen cyanide, sarin, or sulfur mustard gas) against Iraqi Kurds (Kurd) who were considered unfriendly to the regime of Ṣaddām Ḥussein. The most notorious such attack was the killing of 5,000 Kurds, including many civilians, in the city of Halabjah in 1988.

Banning chemical weapons

      During World War I, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, and Russia developed a wide array of chemical arms, including choking, blister, blood, and irritant agents. During World War II, Germany developed nerve agents such as toman, soman, and sarin. After World War II, the British invented VX, a more persistent nerve agent that eventually was deployed by the United States and the Soviet Union.

      The World War I chemical agents are referred to as first-generation weapons; the World War II nerve agents are called second-generation weapons; and Cold War chemical agents (such as VX) are known as third-generation weapons. Part of the U.S. arsenal during the Cold War also included CS, a riot-control agent, and BZ, an incapacitant, as well as sarin and VX. The Soviet Union also had a complete chemical weapons arsenal, including “classic” agents from the first, second, and third generation, all of which are now banned by the CWC.

      According to some interpretations, the CWC does not cover fourth-generation chemical weapons, so-called nontraditional agents (NTAs), such as some of the binary nerve agents known as “novichoks.” There is evidence that Russia inherited NTAs from the former Soviet arsenals.

      Negotiations to secure a multilateral chemical disarmament treaty began in the early 1960s at the United Nations. Issues that separated the sides were the kinds of verification procedures for checking on treaty compliance, whether all or part of the weapons stocks should be dismantled, and the sanctions to be levied against violators. Real progress did not take place until the period 1986–91, when relations between the Soviet Union and the United States improved after the rise to power of Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev (Gorbachev, Mikhail). With the dissolution first of the Warsaw Pact in 1989 and then of the Soviet Union itself in 1991, a real convergence of political and diplomatic views was made possible. In 1990 bilateral reductions and limits were negotiated in which each state agreed to a limit of 5,000 tons of chemical agents in its chemical weapons arsenal. By 1993 the former enemies were finally willing to agree to a robust on-site verification regime featuring challenge inspections of undeclared sites, a total ban on chemical weapons, and a total dismantling of their stockpiles.

      The United Nations Conference on Disarmament adopted the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) on Sept. 3, 1992, and the treaty was opened to signature by all states on Jan. 13, 1993. The CWC entered into force on April 29, 1997, 180 days after the deposit of the 65th instrument of ratification (such as passage by a national assembly).

      At the time that the United States and Russia signed the CWC, Russia declared 40,000 metric tons of chemical weapon agents and the United States 30,000 metric tons—stockpiles that dwarfed the combined arsenals of the rest of the world. All are to be destroyed, according to CWC guidelines, by the year 2012. The United States is on a trajectory to finish the job by 2012, but Russia is lagging far behind in its parallel effort. In the early 1990s the U.S. Cooperative Threat Reduction Program was launched to help the states of the former Soviet Union demilitarize their chemical, biological, and nuclear facilities and arsenals and also employ the scientists and technicians from those programs in other, more productive peacetime activities.

      All other signatories to the CWC reportedly eliminated their stockpiles, though some states subsequently declared stockpiles that they had previously denied existed. Libya is a case in point. In 2004 Libya decided to part with its chemical and nuclear weapons programs and invited the United States and the United Kingdom to help it dismantle both.

      United Nations inspection teams entered Iraq after the Persian Gulf War ended in early 1991. Some 43,000 Iraqi chemical weapons were then found and destroyed. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq (Iraq War) in 2003, no major stockpile of chemical weapons or dedicated facilities for their manufacture were found in Iraq, contrary to the United States' contention before the invasion. A very few chemical rounds were found among arms storage sites in Iraq, but they were thought to be left over from the Iran-Iraq War.

Proliferation and detection of chemical weapons programs

Chemical weapons proliferation

      The Chemical Weapons Convention has resulted in the elimination of huge stocks of chemical weapons once held by the principal adversaries of the Cold War. Nevertheless, intelligence services of various countries have reported an increase in the number of states with active chemical weapons programs. Some 20 countries were reportedly working on chemical weapons at the beginning of the 21st century, as opposed to only five such states in the 1960s.

      Regimes seek to acquire chemical weapons for a number of reasons. First, they may decide that having such lethal weapons will allow them to “level the playing field” against an adversary with a stronger conventional military force. Second, they may wish to deter attacks by rivals, holding them at bay with the threat of a chemical weapons strike in retaliation. Having one type of weapon of mass destruction might deter the use of the same or another type by a rival. Third, chemical weapons, like other mass casualty weapons such as nuclear and biological arms, may be designed for regime survival in the event that a country is losing a conventional conflict. In this case, possession of chemical warfare capabilities might provide endgame bargaining leverage to establish better terms. For example, in the Iran-Iraq War, Iraq's use of Scud ballistic missiles (with the potential to deliver chemical warheads) against Iranian cities caused major panic in those metropolitan centres and helped persuade the Iranian government to agree to a cease-fire sought by Iraq. Fourth, chemicals can be used as terror weapons to lower enemy morale and weaken support for the rival's war effort. Finally, chemical weapons can be used against unprotected rebellious groups inside a country, as Ṣaddām Ḥussein illustrated in his chemical weapon strikes against the Kurdish city of Halabjah.

Detection of clandestine programs

      Although most states have joined the CWC, some member states may still cheat and deploy a clandestine chemical weapons program. Inspectors from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW; the body that administers the CWC) number only in the hundreds, whereas the estimated number of chemical plants that might be inspected exceed many thousands. Therefore, only a small fraction of sites can be inspected every year. Still other states, notably Israel and some of its Arab rivals, refuse to ratify the various nuclear, biological, and chemical nonproliferation pacts until their rivals eliminate their own (undeclared) arsenals and join the respective arms-control treaty regimes.

      This leads to the question of how a clandestine chemical weapons program can be detected and measured. Using technical means, human intelligence, and on-site inspections, chemical weapons program signatures can be monitored when searching for a hidden cache of weapons or a production process. These signatures include purchases of unique combinations of chemical precursors and equipment, the presence of equipment for chemical weaponization, and the presence of chemical warfare defensive gear in military units. Other signatures are the discovery of trace amounts of chemical warfare agents or chemical weapons degradation products at a production site or in a plant's waste products. Finally, signatures may be the presence of storage bunkers, related manufacturing facilities needed for chemical weaponization, or even the presence of a chemical plant with abnormal input-output flows of materials. Nevertheless, detection of clandestine chemical weapons, banned by the CWC or otherwise, is a difficult challenge, since chemical weapons production can be embedded in commercial chemical production plants and evidence can be eliminated in a short period prior to permitting inspectors onto a site—if they are allowed on at all.

      The Australia Group is a standing diplomatic conference made up of representatives from states dedicated to restraining the proliferation of key materials and technologies that could be used to produce chemical or biological weapons. Since its formation in 1985, members of the organization have exchanged information and cooperated with one another to control such exports to suspect buyers. The Australia Group is a strictly voluntary and informal export control regime with no formal guidelines, charter, or constitution.

Chemical weapons and terrorism

      Until the 1990s, terrorists had rarely possessed or employed chemical weapons. However, several states that have sponsored terrorism have also possessed chemical weapons—Libya, Iran, and Iraq—and there is a concern that they and groups they sponsor might use chemical weapons in the future.

      An example of an organization that learned to produce and use chemical weapons is the AUM Shinrikyo sect in Japan, members of which used sarin nerve agent to kill 12 people and injure more than 1,000 in a March 1995 chemical weapons attack inside the Tokyo subway system. Members of this same group had killed 7 and injured more than 300 in a June 1994 attack in Matsumoto, Japan. They also assassinated one opponent using VX nerve agent in Osaka and injured another by the same means in Tokyo in early 1995. Finally, in May and July 1995, members of the AUM Shinrikyo used hydrogen cyanide in two follow-up strikes in the Tokyo subway that injured four persons. Altogether, the several attacks with three different types of chemical weapons killed 20 people, injured some 1,300, and sent more than 5,600 to the hospital for examination. Casualties would likely have been much higher had the Japanese police not intervened when they did.

      Al-Qaeda (Qaeda, al-) leaders have shown an interest in acquiring and employing chemical weapons, as indicated by experiments testing the use of hydrogen cyanide on animals in al-Qaeda camps in Afghanistan prior to the September 11 attacks on the United States in 2001. In addition to other documents showing ongoing research on chemical weapons, al-Qaeda planned and then aborted a chemical attack on the New York City subway system in 2005. Furthermore, al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia (also known as al-Qaeda of Iraq) initiated chlorine attacks in Iraq in 2007. It is believed by some Western analysts that al-Qaeda leaders would not hesitate to use any chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear weapons that they might acquire. For example, al-Qaeda of Mesopotamia openly issued a public invitation for Muslim chemists, biologists, and physicists to join their cause.

      Unfortunately, a substantial amount of information on how to manufacture chemical weapons already exists in the public domain, particularly on the Internet, which is within reach of individuals and groups worldwide.

Barry R. Schneider

Additional Reading

Frederick R. Sidell, Ernest T. Takafuji, and David R. Franz (eds.), Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare (1997), is an excellent historical and medical summary of chemical and biological warfare issues, agents, and treatments. Eric Croddy, Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Comprehensive Survey for the Concerned Citizen (2002), details the properties and evolution of chemical and biological weapons, as well as the historical efforts to impose arms control and disarmament limitations on their development, production, possession, and use. Albert Mauroni, Chemical and Biological Warfare, 2nd ed. (2007), is an excellent summary of chemical and biological warfare problems and solutions that also contains information on case studies, organizations, and further resources on the subject. Jonathan Tucker, War of Nerves: Chemical Warfare from World War I to Al-Qaeda (2006), is a unique set of historical case studies of chemical and biological terrorism, including lessons learned and motivational factors. Stephen F. Burgess and Helen E. Purkitt, The Rollback of South Africa's Chemical and Biological Warfare Program (2001), details Project Coast, the South African chemical and biological weapons program that started in 1981 and was finally terminated in 1994. Jonathan Tucker, “The Yellow Rain Controversy: Lessons for Arms Control Compliance,” The Nonproliferation Review, Spring 2001, is a comprehensive discussion of the history of the controversy over whether the Soviet Union and its Vietnamese and Laotian communist allies used mycotoxins against resistance forces in Laos and Cambodia in the 1970s; one lesson learned is that verifying such charges is extremely difficult when evidence is ambiguous, incomplete, and highly classified and when alternative explanations might also fit the data available.Barry R. Schneider

* * *