Chemical Weapons Past, Present, Future - Research Paper Example

 Chemical Weapons – Past, Present and Future Introduction In chemistry, chemical agents have multiple uses including fertilizers and other aerosols, cleaning agents and indicators. However, Chemicals are also used in military operations. According to the federation of American Scientists or FAS (2011), military uses of chemicals include operations such as killing, incapacitating people and seriously injuring people. These applications of chemicals in military are facilitated their physiological effects on the targets. Chemical agents are grouped into various categories. This classification is based on the psychological manner in which the chemical weapon affects the human body. In addition, the classification of chemical weapons may be based on the weapon’s chemical structure or tactical purpose. Despite differences in categories as depicted in various sources, the common forms of chemical agents are harassing agents, tear agents, blood agents, chocking agents, nerve agents. This paper explores chemical weapons in terms of their history, the current chemical agents’ threats and the future of chemical weapons. The past of chemical weapons For thousands of years, chemicals have been used as war tools. Some of this tools included poisoned bow, arsenic smoke, boiling tar and noxious fumes. Although the use of these chemicals in war never brought much concern, the First World War battlefields formed the genesis of modern chemical warfare. FAS (2012) reveal that as early as 432 B.C, Sparta allies in the Peloponnesian War used coal, pitch and sulfur directed through a hollowed-out beam into the fort. Succeeding centuries saw the use of smoke and flame while the 7th century A.D saw the Greeks invent Greek fire that combined Rosin, Sulfur, Lime, naphtha and saltpeter. The birth of modern day chemical welfare was contributed by the 18th and 19th century development of modern inorganic chemistry. The flourishing of organic chemistry in the 19th and 20th century in Germany followed this. This development resulted to the generation of renewed interest in chemicals for use in military weapons. In addition, the development of organic and inorganic chemicals in military resulted to a heated debate on chemical welfare ethics. The British admiralty proceeded to reject a request in 1812 requiring the use of burning sulfur-laden ships’ introduction to marine landings in France. The basis for the rejection was that such a request was against the rules of warfare (FAS, 2012). On another incident 42 years later, the British War Office condemned Sir Lyon proposal to use Cyanide-filled shells to break the Sebastopol siege in the Crimean war using cyanide. In its condemnation, the British government argued that using Cyanide use was inhumane and of equal effects with poisoning the water supply of an enemy. However, Sir Lyon said that he did not understand the rejection given that use of molten metal against enemies would result to the most frightful way to kill (Cobb, 2000). In addition to Sir Lyon’s cyanide use proposal, there were other proposals in the nineteenth century that were never put to practice. These include proposals to use shells filled with chlorine against the confederacy during American civil war and the suggestion to dip French bayonets into cyanide during the Franco-Prussian war. The Brussels Convention in 1874 attempted to ban poisons use in war. Conversely, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 measured the morality of chemical warfare but never came up with a strong and clearly worded resolution against chemical use. Goebel (2012) revealed that Germans led in industrial chemistry in the beginning of the 20th century. For this reason, the First World War was a platform for Germany to display its expertise in developing chemical weapons. This was not foreseen therefore the consequences were far reaching. In the World War I, chemical warfare traces to a single man named Flitz Haber. Haber was the man believed to create poisonous gases for Germany. Universally, Haber was a well known scientist who had established the crucial process of nitrate extraction from the atmosphere (Goebel, 2012). At first, nitrate was used to manufacture fertilizer and later the nitrate was used to create explosives. As a dedicated German patriot, Haber had a sense of discipline and duty similar to that of the Prussians. This discipline and duty was reinforced by Haber’s Jewish origin despite renouncing his faith in 1902. When the First World War broke in 1914, there was confidence among the Germans that they would win. However, victory was not easily forthcoming and this led Haber to believe that poison gas had remarkable ability to penetrate the strongest fortifications and trenches. As a result, the German army would penetrate through allied defenses. In his experimentation with poison gases available in his laboratory as unwanted products, Haber began his experimentation with Chlorine gas. This gas has a diatomic molecule that is a highly reactive dye industry chemical. After much work, Haber approached the German Military to sell them poisonous gas for use in war. In early 1915, the military bought his poison gas and gave him an officer’s rank. The early defeat of the Germans was attributed to their use of Flamethrowers against France’s riot control agents for controlling civilians’ crowds. Goebel (2012) revealed that in April 22 1915, German conducted the first chlorine gas attack against French and Algerian troops that faced them in Ypres in Belgium. In this attack, the Germans positioned 5,730 chlorine gas cylinders. These cylinders were then opened their valves and 180 tonnes of Chlorine gas. The gas formed a dense cloud that rolled in the Allied lines chocking them with bleach smell. Moreover, an associated nasty irritation with chlorine gas causes harsh coughing. At 1,000 parts per million, Chlorine is lethal and strips the lining from the lungs and victims drown in their own fluids. The attacked soldiers were chocked, lungs burnt and slowly dying. On 24 April 1915, Germans poured gas into Canadian lines. During the World War I, several different types of chemical weapons were used and resulted to about 90,000 deaths and at least one million casualties (OPCW, 2012). Those who survived had effects for the rest of their lives while the Leper effects resulted to scarred generations. The delivery means for chemical weapons advanced in the first twentieth century’s first half. As a result, chemical weapons proliferated thereby frightening the killing and maiming capacity through chemical munitions development. Common chemical munitions were in the form of artillery shells, mortar projectiles, aerial bombs, landmines and spray tanks. OPCW (2012) highlighted that after witnessing the effects of chemical weapons after First World War, few countries were provoked to be the first to introduce even deadlier chemical weapons onto the battlefields of the Second World War (Globalsecurity, 1984). According to International.gc, (2009) the battlefield of First World War was characterized by persistent and non-persistent chemicals that increased danger and difficulty of military operations. However, many countries prepared to retaliate should warfare involve the use of chemical weapons. Chemical weapons were deployed largely nearly in all theatres in first and second world wars. This left behind a legacy of abandoned old weapons that still present problem in many countries they remained buried in some of the battlefields in Europe. Despite their impacts, chemical weapons development and use continued throughout the twentieth century. In their invasion of Ethiopia in 1935-1936, Italian troops used chemical weapon. Conversely, the war between Japan and China, in 1937-1945, Japan used chemical weapons (Tucker, 2010). During the cold war, the Soviet Union and United States sustained large chemical weapons stockpiles. These chemicals amounted to thousands of tones and were sufficient for destroying most of the animal and human life on earth. In 1963-1967 in Northern Yemen, Egypt used chemical weapons to conquer while Iraq-Iran War of 1983-1988 involved extensive use of chemical weapons. In order to fight against Halabja’s Kursdish residents, Iraq used nerve agents and mustard gas in 1988. The most recent chemical attack was in Matsumoto residential community in Japan in 1994 where Sarin was used. In another incident, Sarin was used in a Tokyo subway in 1995. The Matsomoto and Tokyo subway were perpetrated by Aum Shinrikyu doomsday cult. Chemical weapons in use in the past have had devastating impacts in the world. However, there is potential for use of even deadlier chemical weapons in the world which provides imperative for the international effort to uphold the ban on chemical (Globalsecurity, 1984). Chemical weapons in the present Today, chemical weapons are increasingly complicated and refined. This means that soldiers have to assert with multiple deadly chemicals that range from nerve agents to blister agents. The most deadly weapon is Sarin gas. The lethality property makes Sarin attack responsible for fast invasion and damage of the nervous system thereby killing humans in less than one minute provided they get into contact with it. The most noxious chemical weapons fall under one classification. This classification is referred to as Lethal Unitary Chemical Agents and Munitions (Tucker, 2010). A mixture of shadow and light surrounds the status on the proliferation of chemical weapons. On the light side, Chemical Weapons Convention or CWC has effectively been implemented since its adoption in Geneva in 1992 after being signed by 164 countries. The entry of CWC into force was in 1997. This move has resulted to the reduction in the number of countries that possess chemical weapons. Statistics reveal that, during the 1980s, there were nearly twenty countries while, it is half a dozen as at now. Conversely, the number of member states has increased to 188 states that have not only signed but also ratified the CWC. This accounts for about 98% of the world landmass and population. The fact that this treaty has just been operational for a several years makes 188 a remarkable number. According to Tucker (2010), the increase in the number of states in CWC is attributed to the international secretariat in The Hague or the Organization for the Prohibition of chemical Weapons or OPCW. This secretariat has actively and continually been involved in the recruitment of new members (Globalsecurity, 1984). CWC prohibits the creation, manufacture, possession, transmission and utilization of all toxic chemicals. The only exception provided is where the purpose for use and preparation is peaceful and defenses against chemical attack. This purpose is called the general purpose criterion. Its intention is to ensure that no form of technology can overtake it. This is because any novel chemical agent created falls under the CWC purview (Tucker, 2010). Today, CWC requires that all existing chemical weapons stockpiles be declared. In addition, the destruction of CW stockpiles must be under strict international monitoring and so should the conversion or dismantling of such weapons to peaceful purposes. In the US, chemical weapons are stockpiled in eight military bases with locations around the country. However, the exact location of these weapons is classified information. The common chemical weapons in the US are potent blister agents that are associated with irritations in the eyes and the skin. The US is not alone in stockpiling numerous forms of chemical warfare agents as numerous militaries around the world do today. Today, the forms of chemical weapons include solid, liquid and gases. These chemical weapons are dispersed in numerous ways, which include bombs, aircrafts and the wind. For some chemical weapons, the dispersion techniques are pyrotechnics and explosions. Today, the responsibility of chemical weapons stockpiles falls under the government. The Syrian Government has recently stated the existence and possible use of tools of mass destruction weapons amidst the ongoing turmoil (UN.org, 2012). Although the UN prohibits the use of such weapons, the Syrian government has no membership in the Chemical Weapons Convention or CWC. This means that the Syrian government is not willing to follow the ban on using and stockpiling such weapons. The other states that are not CWC members include Angola, Egypt, Korea, Israel, South Sudan, and Somalia. Although UN.org (2012) reveals that chemical weapons have no place in the 21st century and those chemical weapons stockpiles must be eliminated, the US and Russia demonstrates slow disarmament speed. This raises concerns given that Russia and the US posses the largest chemical weapons stockpiles. This has been demonstrated by the inability of these two nations to meet the April 29 2012 deadline by CWC to have all chemical weapons destroyed. As a result, such failure by the world’ largest CW possessors is likely to undermine CW stockpiles elimination credibility. However, Moscow and Washington demonstrate commitment to the CWC goals through reaffirmation of the intent to complete their destruction task. The non-compliance of some nations like Syria resulted to the establishment of the option for any CWC member state to request the OPCW inspectorate to carry out a challenge inspection on a short notice to any suspect facility by the CWC negotiators (Crone, 1992). Such a suspect facility could be declared or not, but located on another member state’s territory (Tucker, 2012). This is a safety net measure intended to capture clandestine chemical weapons creation, formation or storage of deliberately undeclared CW thereby being eliminated from routine universal inspection. Despite the presence of a platform to allegations of noncompliance, states have been reluctant to request a challenge inspection for years since the inception of the treaty. This reluctance has been attributed to the high standards that have been set by the CWC negotiators requiring sufficient evidence of treaty violation to be presented. Tucker (2010) reveals that with increased duration of non usage of CWC challenge inspection mechanism, the lesser the probability of retaining its violations determent power. The US is however said to have unclassified information identifying several suspects including Russia. Additional concerns on Russia’s CW proliferation reveal that the knowledge used in the development of deadly compound could leak to the public. Other suspect nations by the US are Iran, Syria, and Egypt among others (Crone, 1992). The future of chemical weapons Economic globalization has been attributed to undermining of ancient nonproliferation measures with the potential of CW threat. For instance, combinational chemistry has been adopted in the development of new drug candidates in pharmaceutical industry. From the drug production process, byproducts are mostly toxic compounds that could be developed to CW agents. Such toxic compounds are highly likely to be formed given emerging technologies. In addition, present day advancement in technology used in chemical production poses a threat to CW especially through flexible manufacturing equipment that could serve multiple purposes (Global security, 1984). Additional chemical weapons threat arises from the convergence between biological and chemical techniques used n production. One such technique is synthetic biology. Through the spread of flexible chemical manufacturing techniques, countries are enabled to gain latent and virtual ability to produce CW without any specialized facilities. As a result, it will be difficult to detect such CW production and storage resulting to underground violation of CWC regulations. Conclusion This paper has delved into the history, current and future nature of chemical weapons. As seen in the discussion, chemical weapons are for military use in operations involving incapacitating, killing and seriously injuring people. Prior to the use of chemical weapons in the First World War, chemicals were used in war. The most common forms of tools using chemicals included poisoned war, arsenic spoke, noxious fumes and boiling tar. For instance, Sparta allies used sulfur, pitch and coal during the Peloponnesian war. With the invention of organic and inorganic chemistry in the 19th and 20th century, modern day chemical weapons emerged. The most famous chemical weapon innovationist was Flitz Haber who developed the use of Chlorine gas against French and Algerian Troops. Other chemical weapons used in the 20th century were in nerve agents by Iraq and the use of Sarin in Tokyo subway and matsomoto. Today chemical weapons are complex and sophisticated. The most lethal chemical weapon today is Sarin and falls under the Lethal Unitary Chemical Agents and Munitions. Following the adoption of Chemical weapon convention, proliferation of chemical weapons is a requirement for all member states. However, with advancement in technology and the biding laws of CWC, CW are produced and stored illegally through most nations that have the ability to produce pharmaceutical products with toxic byproducts. As a result, the management of CW has been complicated and insufficient as such chemicals are deliberately kept secret. References Cobb, A. (2000). Biological and chemical weapons: the debate over modern warfare. New York, United States: The Rosen publishing Group, Inc. Crone, H. (1992). Banning chemical weapons the Scientific background. New York, United States: Cambridge University Press. Federation of American scientists or FAS, (2012). Medical management of chemical casualties Handbook. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/army/mmcch/Introduc.htm Globalsecurity, (1984). Chemical welfare in future military operations. Retrieved from http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1984/ARW.htm Goebel, G. (2012). History of chemical welfare (1). Retrieved from http://www.vectorsite.net/twgas_1.html International.gc, (2009). History of chemical welfare. Retrieved from http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/non_nuclear-non_nucleaire/history-historique.aspx?lang=eng&view=d Organization for the prohibition of chemical weapons or OPCW, (2012). Basic Facts on Chemical Disarmament. Retrieved from http://www.opcw.org/news-publications/publications/history-of-the-chemical-weapons-convention/ Tucker, J. (2010). The Future of Chemical Weapons. Retrieved from http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-future-of-chemical-weapons UN.org, (2012). Threat posed by chemical weapons remains serious global concern, Says Ban. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43171&Cr=chemical+weapons&Cr1=#.UNiPqqwtzFw Read More