Print

xiii Chemical and Biological Warfare as Weapons of Mass Destruction : A U.S. Perspective Despite the trauma of World War I and “gas warfare,” in the early and even late 20th century, there remained dedicated apolo- gists for the use of chemical weapons (CW). Objectively speaking, those who advocated for CW had supportable arguments on their side. The rationalization was that conven- tional artillery, bullets, and bombs caused the vast majority of dead (at least 10 mil- lion) in the Great War—not gas. And in addition to millions more who were injured, at least 140,000 soldiers from all sides also suffered the loss of at least one limb.1 In contrast, chemical casualties usually recov- ered with no significant permanent injury. To this point, Brigadier General Harold Hartley, a chemist turned soldier, reported to the British Association (“On Chemical Warfare”) in 1919, “There is no comparison between the permanent damage caused by gas, and the suffering caused to those who were maimed and blinded by shell and rifle fire. It is now generally admitted that in the later stages of the war many military objects could be attained with less suffering by using gas than by any other means.”2 Still, the real or perceived horror of gas in World War I led the international commu- nity to reinvigorate treaties to outlaw such methods of warfare. Previous attempts, such as The Hague Convention (1899), seemed to have it covered, prohibiting “asphyxiating or deleterious gases.” But two of the major belligerents in the Great War never signed on to the convention (the United States and Great Britain), and even ones that did (Germany) exploited its wide loopholes to justify their use of chemicals in World War I. The same could be said for the 1925 Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. Although the 1925 protocol may have outlawed such use, it had no provisions against the research, develop- ment, production, and possession of such weaponry. During the 1930s, the Geneva Protocol notwithstanding, chemical weapons were seen as a future threat to urban populations, as they could lead to “mass destruction.” In her 1934 argument for both chemical and biological toxin disarmament, Elvira Frad- kin predicted that citizens of all nations were at risk from the combination of aerial warfare and chemical weapons. Wholesale urban populations faced being massacred by gas bombs from thousands of airplanes (the number of planes neces- sarily decreasing as the deadliness of lethal burning phosphorus and smoke