1. 1. Weapons of Mass Destruction Volume I: Chemical and Biological Weapons
2. 2. Weapons of Mass Destruction An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and HistoryEric A. Croddy and James J. Wirtz, Editors Jeffrey A. Larsen, Managing Editor Foreword by David Kay Volume I: Chemical and Biological Weapons Eric A. Croddy, Editor Santa Barbara, California Denver, Colorado Oxford, England
3. 3. Copyright 2005 by Eric A. Croddy, James J. Wirtz, and Jeffrey A. Larsen All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publishers.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Weapons of mass destruction : an encyclopedia of worldwide policy, technology, and history / Eric A. Croddy and James J. Wirtz, editors.p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-85109-490-3 (hardback : alk. paper)ISBN 1-85109-495-4 (e-book) 1. Weapons of mass destructionEncyclopedias. I. Croddy, Eric, 1966 II. Wirtz, James J., 1958 U793.W427 2005 358'.3'03dc22 2004024651 0807060510987654321This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an eBook. Visit abc-clio.com for details.ABC-CLIO, Inc. 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 931161911This book is printed on acid-free paper.Manufactured in the United States of America
4. 4. ContentsWeapons of Mass Destruction An Encyclopedia of Worldwide Policy, Technology, and HistoryVolume I: Chemical and Biological WeaponsForeword, vii Preface: Weapons of Mass Destruction, ix Editors and Contributors, xiii A-to-Z List of Entries, Volumes I and II, xvii Introduction: Chemical and Biological Weapons, xxv Chronology: Chemical and Biological Weapons, xxxi Chemical and Biological Weapons, Entries A to Y, 1Key Documents: Chemical and Biological Weapons, 341 Bibliography, 395Index, 413v
5. 5. ForewordDavid KaySenior Research Analyst, Potomac Institute, The importance of this encyclopedia was under- Washington, D.C., and former Director, scored by the fact that virtually the only area of Iraq Survey Group (20032004) agreement in the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign between the two major candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry, was that the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses the most serious national security threat with made new classes of weapons possible. But scientific which the next president would have to deal. progress marches at a very fast rate, leaving behind While the prospect of chemical, biological, radi-old, but still dangerous, knowledge. For example, ological, or nuclear weapons falling into the handsthe secrets regarding methods for enriching ura- of terrorists or regimes hostile to the United Statesnium were simply bought by the Iraqis from the and its friends is indeed a frightening prospect, howU.S. Government Printing Office. That office could many of us understand exactly what this means? not imagine that there was anything important in a When were such weapons first developed? Which40-year-old project from the dawn of the U.S. nu- states and scientists are leading these developments?clear program. Have these weapons actually been used in the past? In another remarkable case, uranium enrichment How often and with what consequencenot only technology was stolen from a commercial company for the populations they were used against, but forin Holland by A. Q. Khana rather ordinary Pak- those that used them, as well? Do these weapons re-istani who went to Germany to earn an engineering ally give states a decisive edge over their adversaries? degree. Khan subsequently used this technology to How easy are they to develop and use? Does the easedevelop Pakistans nuclear weapons and then sold the of development or use of such weapons by states, same technology to North Korea, Iran, and Libya. like North Korea, differ from the obstacles faced by The techniques of gene modification, which less than terrorist groups, like al-Qaeda? What are the tools20 years ago were the stuff of Nobel prizes, are now available to the United States to halt the spread of routinely taught in American high schools and com- such weapons? Have we had any success in limitingmunity colleges and have opened up whole new the spread of these weapons? Are there any protec- classes of biological weapons. As this study also tive measures that individuals can take to lessenmakes clear, even the safe disposal of weapons of their vulnerability if such weapons are used?mass destruction following a states decision to aban- These are but a few of the questions that the au-don or limit their programs presents serious chal- thors of this authoritative two-volume study at- lenges of preventing the weapons and associated tempt to answer. This encyclopedia will have endur-technology from falling into the hands of terrorists. ing importance as states and societies attempt toThe thousands of Soviet-era nuclear weapons and come to terms with the consequence of the collisionthe engineering talent that created them represent a of scientific progress with the failure to develop a re- clear and present danger with which the world has liable global security structure. The initial develop- not yet completely dealt. The readers of this work will ment of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, find numerous examples of the lowering of the bar- as this study makes clear, often involved scientific riers to the acquisition by states and terrorists of these and engineering breakthroughs of the highest most terrible of weapons. order. The paths to enriching uranium and geneti-But this study does not simply present the horrors cally modifying pathogens are but two examples ofof a world filled with weapons of mass destruction. It such successes, scientific breakthroughs that have also catalogs and illuminates the various methods of vii
6. 6. viii FOREWORDattempting to control and constrain these weaponsthe few efforts made in this regard, it is hard not to including treaties and agreements such as the Nuclear come away with a sense of dread for the future. Most Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons control efforts have been aimed at states, not at ter- Convention, as well as intrusive inspections, such as rorists operating outside of the control of states. the efforts of the United Nations to hunt suchHopefully students and policy makers using this weapons in Iraq after the first Gulf War. As will bebook a few years hence will be able to record more clear to the reader, such endeavors have had both suc-progress toward meeting this new challenge. cesses and failures. Much remains to be done to en- The authors and editors have done an important sure that their effectiveness matches the problemsservice by pulling together such an illuminating posed by the proliferation of such weapons. The study at exactly the point when there is a broad po- largest gap in effective mechanisms of control and re-litical consensus of the importance of the problem. sponse to the acquisition of such weapons is with re- One can only hope that our citizens and our politi- gard to the efforts of terrorists groups to acquire the cal leaders take the time to explore the depth of in- means of mass murder. While these volumes identifyformation presented here.
7. 7. Preface: Weapons The term weapon of mass destruction (WMD) isof Mass Destruction a relatively modern expression. It was probably first used in print media following the interna-Eric A. Croddy and James J. Wirtz tional uproar over Germanys aerial bombardment of the Basque city of Guernica in April 1937. (The latter event was famously depicted in Picassos painting Guernica y Luno.) Only a year before, an- never particularly enamored by chemical or biolog- other Axis power, Italy, had begun using mustard ical weapons and treated them as a deterrent to be and other chemical warfare (CW) agents inused in retaliation for the use of chemical or bio- Abyssinia (modern-day Ethiopia).1 During the logical weapons used by the opponent. By the early anxious years leading up World War II, WMD re- 1990s, the U.S. military had abandoned offensive ferred to the indiscriminate killing of civilians by use of these weapons, although it maintained a re- modern weaponry, especially aircraft. It alsosearch and development program designed to pro- echoed the fear of chemical weapons that was un- duce effective equipment, procedures, medications, leashed by World War I, which had come to a con- and inoculations to defend against chemical and bi- clusion just a few years earlier.ological attack. Following the development of the atomic bomb Over the last decade, much has been written in 1945, the term WMD came to include nuclearabout WMD. The meaning of the term itself is and eventually biological weapons. WMD was ap- somewhat controversial, although there is a formal, parently first used to describe nuclear warfare by legalistic definition. According to U.S. Code Title Soviet strategists. In 1956, during the 20th Commu-50, War and National Defense, per the U.S. Con- nist Party Congress in Moscow, the Soviet Minister gress, the term weapon of mass destructionmeans of Defenseand Hero of StalingradMarshalany weapon or device that is intended, or has the Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov prophesied thatcapability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to modern warfare will be characterized by the mas-a significant number of people through the release, sive use of air forces, various rocket weapons and dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous various means of mass destruction such as atomic,chemicals or their precursors; a disease organism; thermonuclear, chemical and bacteriologicalradiation or radioactivity.4 For its part, the U.S. De- weapons.2 In that same year, the Hungarian Minis- partment of Defense has a similar characterization ter of Defense echoed Marshal Zhukov, stating that of WMD, although in addition it includes ...the Under modern conditions, the decisive aspect of means to deliver [WMD].5 So, what makes a operational planning is the use of nuclear and other weapon massively destructive? Is it the type of inju- weapons of mass destruction.3 rious agents involved, namely radioactive, chemical, When the West learned of Zhukovs speech, na-or biological, or is it that the attack itself produces tional security strategists in the United States and significant casualties or destruction? Also what elsewhere became quite concerned. By inference,would significant mean in this context: ten, a hun- they concluded that WMDnuclear, biological, dred, or a thousand casualties? What if very few and chemical weaponswere an integral part ofpeople are actually killed or hurt by at attack? In the Soviet military doctrine. Partly in response tolatter respect, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investiga- Zhukovs ministrations on WMD, the United States tion has a rather unique and somewhat satisfying reviewed its offensive chemical and biological interpretation of the term WMD, invoked when weapons program in 1958. The U.S. military was the U.S. government indicted Timothy McVeighix
8. 8. x PREFACEwith using a WMD in his 1995 terrorist attack inture and that civilized people everywhere reject the Oklahoma City. In this case, although the deviceuse of chemical and biological weapons. Interna- used was a conventional bomb (employing ammo- tional law is replete with treaties, agreements, and nium nitrate-fuel oil explosive), A weapon crosses regimes whose purpose is to proscribe the use of the WMD threshold when the consequences of itsthese weapons, or mitigate the consequences of any release overwhelm local responders.6 such use. In particular, the world has successfully Some analysts, however, have suggested that kept nuclear weapons in reserve for almost sixty various technical hurdles prevent chemical andyears as truly deterrent weapons of last resort. even biological weapons from causing casualtiesOur encyclopedia covers a wide range of topics, on a truly massive scale. Some point to the Aum some historical, some drawn from todays headlines. Shinrikyo sarin attack on the Tokyo subway system We describe many of the pathogens, diseases, sub- on March 20, 1995, which resulted in eleven stances, and machines that can serve as weapons of deaths, as an example of the limits of WMD. Theymass destruction, as well as their associated delivery note that high-explosives have been used with far systems. We also describe important events and in- greater lethal effects than sarin in the annals ofdividuals that have been influential in the develop- modern terrorism. Others are increasingly con-ment of weapons of mass destruction and doctrines cerned about the destructive potential of evenfor their use (or control). We have encouraged our rudimentary weapons. Analysts today are worried,contributors to highlight ongoing controversies and for instance, that terrorists might try to employ ra- contemporary concerns about WMD and current diological dispersal devices or dirty bombs.international arms control and nonproliferation ef- These weapons do not detonate with a fission re-forts intended to reduce the threat they pose to action, but rather utilize conventional explosives to world peace and security. Even a work of this length, distribute radiological materials and contaminate however, cannot completely cover the history, sci- a given area. Few deaths are likely to result from theence, and personal stories associated with a topic of effects of a dirty bomb, but the consequencesinthis magnitude, so we have included abundant ref- terms of anxiety, clean-up, and the recognized abil-erences to help readers take those initial steps for ity of a terrorist to conduct the very act itselffurther study of the topics we survey. would likely be far reaching. Acknowledgments About the EncyclopediaOur deepest debt is to the contributors who made The very presence of chemical, biological and nu- this volume a reality. Many of them joined the proj- clear weapons in international arsenals and the po- ect at its inauguration several years ago and have tential that they might fall into the hands of terror-waited a long time to see their work in print. It is im- ist organizations guarantees that weapons of mass possible for just three people to be experts on all of destruction will be of great policy, public, and schol- the subjects covered in this volume, and without the arly interest for years to come. We cannot resolve thehard work of our contributors, this encyclopedia debates prompted by WMD, but we hope that wewould never have been completed. Thanks to our and our contributors can provide facts to help theresearch assistants, Abraham Denmark and Laura reader sort through the controversies that are likely Fontaine, who uncovered most of the key docu- to emerge in the years ahead. Much that is containedments in both volumes and wrote a few entries for in these volumes is disturbing and even frightening;us, as well. We also want to express our appreciation it is impossible to write a cheery encyclopedia about to a senior government official who reviewed Vol- weapons whose primary purpose is to conduct ume II for accuracy and sensitive material. We owe postindustrial-scale mass murder. The sad truth ofa special debt to Jeff Larsen, our managing editor, the matter is that chemical, biological, radiological,whose help was instrumental in the success of this and nuclear weapons reflect the willingness of hu-project. Not only did he provide editorial support to mans to go to great lengths to find increasinglyboth volumes, but he displayed a keen ability to deal lethal and destructive instruments of war and vio-with the publisher and our 95 contributors, keep lence. We are pleased to note, however, that much oftrack of timelines, requirements, and progress, and what is reported in these volumes is historical in na-gently push the two of us when we needed encour-
9. 9. PREFACE xiagement during this multiyear project that involved Frederick R. Sidell, Ernest T. Takafuji, and David over 500 separate parts. Finally, we also want to ex- R. Franz, eds., Textbook of Military Medicine, press our appreciation to Alicia Merritt, MarthaPart I: Warfare, Weaponry, and the Casualty: Whitt, Giulia Rossi, and the behind-the-scenesMedical Aspects of Chemical and Biological copyeditors at ABC-CLIO who worked tirelessly toWarfare (Washington, DC: Borden Institute, help get this manuscript into print. We discoveredWalter Reed Army Medical Center, 1997), p. 54.3. Quoted in the archives, Report of Colonel- that nothing is a trivial matter when it comes to a General Istvn Bata, Hungarian Minister of manuscript of this size. The commitment of ourDefense, to Members of the HWP Central publisher to this topic, and the dedication of theCommittee on the Conduct of the Staff- production staff at ABC-CLIO, greatly facilitated Command Exercise Held, 17 July 1956, found at the completion of these volumes.the International Relations and SecurityWe hope that this encyclopedia will help informNetwork (Switzerland), documents collection, the public debate about weapons of mass destruc-http://www.isn.ethz.ch/ tion and international security policy, with the goal4. Title 50, Chapter 40, Sec. 2302. of never again seeing such weapons used in anger.5. Office of the Secretary of Defense, Proliferation: Threat and Response (Washington, DC: U.S. Notes Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 4. 1. Stanley D. Fair, Mussolinis Chemical War,6. U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), The Army, January 1985, p. 52.FBI and Weapons of Mass Destruction, 4 2. Jeffery K. Smart, History of Chemical and August 1999, http://norfolk.fbi.gov.wmd.htm Biological Warfare: An American Perspective, in
10. 10. Editors Editors and ERIC A. CRODDY (EDITOR, VOLUME I, CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS) Contributors Analyst with U.S. Pacific Command, Pearl Harbor, HIJAMES J. WIRTZ (EDITOR, VOLUME II,JEFFREY M. BALE NUCLEAR WEAPONS) Senior Research Associate, Monterey Institute Professor and Chair, Department of Nationalof International Studies, Monterey, CA Security Affairs, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, and Senior Fellow,ZACH BECKER Center for International Security and Science Applications International Corporation, Cooperation, Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA Arlington, VAJEFFREY A. LARSEN (MANAGING EDITOR, ANJALI BHATTACHARJEE VOLUMES I AND II) Research Associate, WMD Terrorism Project,Senior Policy Analyst, Science ApplicationsCenter for Nonproliferation Studies, MontereyInternational Corporation and President, Institute of International Studies, Monterey, CALarsen Consulting Group, Colorado Springs,CO JENNIFER BROWER Science and Technology Policy Analyst, The ContributorsRAND Corporation, Arlington, VA GARY ACKERMAN Deputy Director, Chemical and BiologicalWILLIAM D. CASEBEER Weapons Nonproliferation Program, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Monterey Institute of International Studies,U.S. Air Force Academy, CO Monterey, CA KALPANA CHITTARANJAN JEFFREY A. ADAMSResearch Fellow, Observer ResearchSenior Analyst, Analytic Services, Inc. (ANSER), Foundation, Chennai Chapter, Chennai, IndiaArlington, VA CLAY CHUN PETER ALMQUISTChairman, Department of Distance Education, Bureau of Arms Control, U.S. Department ofU.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, PA State, Washington, DC WILLIAM S. CLARK ELIZABETH AYLOTTDefense Policy Analyst, Science Applications Plans and Policy Analyst, Science ApplicationsInternational Corporation, Arlington, VA International Corporation, Ramstein Air Base, Germany CHRIS CRAIGE Graduate Student, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA xiii
11. 11. xiv EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORSMALCOLM DAVIS ANDREA GABBITAS Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, KingsGraduate Student, Department of Political College London, London, UKScience, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA ABE DENMARK Graduate Student, Graduate School ofSCOTT SIGMUND GARTNER International Studies, University of Denver,Associate Professor, Department of Political Denver, COScience, University of CaliforniaDavis, Davis, CAJOHN W. DIETRICHMICHAEL GEORGE Assistant Professor, Bryant University, Policy Analyst, Science Applications Smithfield, RIInternational Corporation, Arlington, VAANDREW M. DORMANDON GILLICH Lecturer in Defence Studies, Kings College Nuclear Research and Operations Officer, U.S. London, London, UKArmy, Colorado Springs, COFRANNIE EDWARDS DAN GOODRICH Office of Emergency Services, San Jose, CAPublic Health Department, Santa Clara, CALAWRENCE R. FINKPHIL GRIMLEY Corporate Export Administration, InternationalProfessor of Pathology and Molecular Cell Legal Department, Science ApplicationsBiology, F. Edward Herbert Medical School, International Corporation, Arlington, VAUniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD STEPHANIE FITZPATRICK Arms Control/Policy Analyst, IndependentEUGENIA K. GUILMARTIN Consultant, Arlington, VA Assistant Professor, Department of Social Sciences, U.S. Military Academy, West Point, NY SCHUYLER FOERSTER President, World Affairs Council of Pittsburgh, JOHN HART Pittsburgh, PAResearcher, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Solna, Sweden LAURA FONTAINE Graduate Student, Graduate School ofPETER HAYS International Studies, University of Denver,Executive Editor, Joint Force Quarterly, National Denver, CODefense University, Washington, DCJ. RUSS FORNEYJAMES JOYNER Associate Professor, Department of ChemistryManaging Editor, Strategic Insights, and Life Science, U.S. Military Academy, West Washington, DC Point, NY AARON KARP MARTIN FURMANSKIProfessor, Old Dominion University, and Scientists Working Group on Biological andAssistant Professor, U.S. Joint Forces Staff Chemical Weapons, Center for Arms Control College, Norfolk, VA and Nonproliferation, Ventura, CA KERRY KARTCHNER Senior Advisor for Missile Defense Policy, U.S. State Department, Washington, DC
12. 12. EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS xvMIKE KAUFHOLD CLAUDINE MCCARTHY Senior National Security Policy Analyst, ScienceNational Association of County and City Health Applications International Corporation, San Officials, Washington, DC Antonio, TX JEFFREY D. MCCAUSLAND BRET KINMANDirector, Leadership in Conflict Initiative, Graduate Student, Department of National Dickinson College, Carlisle, PA Security Affairs, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CAPATRICIA MCFATE Science Applications International Corporation, KIMBERLY L. KOSTEFF Santa Fe, NM Policy Analyst, Science Applications International Corporation, Arlington, VAROB MELTON Assistant Professor of Military Strategic Studies, AMY E. KRAFFT 34th Education Group, U.S. Air Force Academy, Research Biologist, Department of Molecular CO Genetic Pathology, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Rockville, MDBRIAN MORETTI Assistant Professor, Department of Physics, U.S. JENNIFER LASECKIMilitary Academy, West Point, NY Computer Sciences Corporation, Alexandria, VA JENNIFER HUNT MORSTEIN PETER LAVOY Senior Analyst, Science Applications Director, Center for Contemporary Conflict, International Corporation, McLean, VA U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA EDWARD P. NAESSENS, JR. SEAN LAWSON Associate Professor, Nuclear Engineering Graduate Student, Department of Science and Program Director, Department of Physics, U.S. Technology Studies, Rensselaer PolytechnicMilitary Academy, West Point, NY Institute, Troy, NY T. V. PAUL MICHAEL LIPSONJames McGill Professor of International Assistant Professor, Department of PoliticalRelations, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Science, Concordia University, Montreal, CanadaROY PETTIS Science Advisor to the Office of Strategic and BRIAN LITALIEN Theater Defenses, Bureau of Arms Control, U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC State Department, Washington, DCMORTEN BREMER MAERLIRICH PILCHResearcher, Norwegian Institute of International Scientist in Residence, Chemical and BiologicalAffairs, Oslo, NorwayNonproliferation Program, Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of TOM MAHNKEN International Studies, Monterey, CA Professor of Strategy, Naval War College, Newport, RI ELIZABETH PRESCOTT International Institute for Strategic Studies, ROBERT MATHEWSWashington, DC Asia-Pacific Centre for Military Law, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
13. 13. xvi EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORSBEVERLEY RIDER ROBERT SOBESKI Senior Scientist, Genencor International, Inc.,Assistant Professor, Department of Physics, U.S. Palo Alto, CAMilitary Academy, West Point, NYGUY ROBERTSJOHN SPYKERMAN Principal Director, Negotiations Policy, Office of Foreign Affairs Officer, U.S. State Department, the Secretary of Defense, Washington DCWashington, DCJ. SIMON ROFETROY S. THOMAS Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, Kings Fellow, Center for Strategic Intelligence College London, London, UK Research, Defense Intelligence Agency,Washington, DC KEN ROGERS Professor of Political Science, Department ofCHARLES L. THORNTON Social Sciences and Philosophy, Arkansas TechResearch Fellow, Center for International and University, Russellville, AR Security Studies, School of Public Policy,University of Maryland, College Park, MD STEVEN ROSENKRANTZ Foreign Affairs Officer, Office of Strategic and ROD THORNTON Theater Defenses, Bureau of Arms Control, U.S. Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, Kings State Department, Washington, DC College London, London, UKC. ROSS SCHMIDTLEINANTHONY TUResearch Fellow, Department of MedicalDepartment of Biochemistry and MolecularPhysics, Memorial Sloan-Kettering CancerBiology, Colorado State University, Ft Collins, COCenter, New York, NYPETER VALE GLEN M. SEGELL Nelson Mandela Professor of Politics, Rhodes Director, Institute of Security Policy, London,University, Grahamstown, South Africa UKGILLES VAN NEDERVEEN D. SHANNON SENTELL, JR.Independent Consultant, Fairfax, VAAssistant Professor, Department of Physics, U.S.Military Academy, West Point, NYMICHAEL WHEELERSenior Defense Analyst, Science Applications JACQUELINE SIMON International Corporation, McLean, VAIndependent Consultant, Ottawa, CanadaJOLIE WOOD JOSHUA SINAI Graduate Student, Department of Government, Analytic Services, Inc. (ANSER), Alexandria, VAUniversity of Texas, Austin, TXSTANLEY R. SLOAN JACK WOODALL Visiting Scholar, Middlebury College, and Visiting Professor, Department of Medical Director, Atlantic Community Initiative,Biochemistry, Federal University of Rio de Richmond, VTJaneiro, BrazilJAMES M. SMITH ROBERT WYMAN Director, USAF Institute for National Security Arms Control Operations Specialist, Science Studies, U.S. Air Force Academy, ColoradoApplications International Corporation, Springs, COArlington, VA
14. 14. Volume I: Chemical and Biological Weapons A to Z List of Entries, Aberdeen Proving Ground Abrin Volumes I and II Adamsite (DM, diphenylaminochlorarsine Aerosol Agent Orange Agroterrorism (Agricultural BiologicalChemical and Biological Munitions and MilitaryWarfare)Operations Al-QaedaChemical Warfare Al ShifaChemical Weapons Convention (CWC) Amiton (VG) Chlamydia Psittaci (Psittacosis) Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO)Chlorine Gas Anthrax Chloropicrin (PS, Trichloronitromethane) Aralsk Smallpox OutbreakChoking Agents (Asphyxiants) Arbusov ReactionCholera (Vibrio cholerae) ArsenicalsConotoxin AtropineCrimean-Congo Hemorrhagic Fever Aum Shinrikyo Crop Dusters (Aerial Applicators) The Australia Group CS Cyclosarin (GF) Bari Incident Bhopal, India: Union Carbide Accident Decontamination Bigeye (BLU-80) Demilitarization of Chemical and Biological Binary Chemical MunitionsAgents Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Dianisidine(BTWC) Difluor (DF, Difluoromethylphosphonate) Biological Terrorism: Early Warning via the Diisopropyl Fluorophosphate (DFP)Internet Dioxin Biological WarfareDiphosgene Biopreparat Dual-Use Bioregulators Dugway Proving Ground Bioterrorism BleachEA2192 Blood AgentsEMPTA (O-Ethyl Methylphosphonothioic Acid) Botulism (Botulinum Toxin)Enterovirus 70 Brucellosis (Brucella Bacterium)Equine Encephalitis (VEE, WEE, EEE) Ethiopia (Abyssinia) C-4 Explosives Carbamates Centers for Disease Control and PreventionFentanyl (CDC) Fermenter Chemical Agent MonitorFoot-and-Mouth Disease Virusxvii
15. 15. xviii A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIESFort Detrick Oklahoma City Bombing Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE) OrganophosphatesOsama bin Laden Gas Gangrene Oximes Geneva Protocol Glanders (Burkholderia Mallei) ParasitesFungal Gruinard IslandParathion (Methyl and Ethyl) G-Series Nerve AgentsPerfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) Gulf War: Chemical and Biological WeaponsPhosgene Gas (Carbonyl Chloride) Gulf War SyndromePhosgene Oxime (CX, Dichloroform Oxime)Pine Bluff, Arkansas Hague Convention Plague Halabja Incident Plasticized Explosives Heartwater (Cowdria Ruminantium) Point Source Hemorrhagic Fevers Porton Down, United Kingdom Herbicides PrecursorsProtective Measures: Biological Weapons India: Chemical and Biological Weapons Protective Measures: Chemical WeaponsProgramsPsychoincapacitants InversionPyridostigmine Bromide Iran: Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs Iran-Iraq WarQ-Fever Iraq: Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs QLJapan and WMDRicin Johnston Atoll Rift Valley FeverRiot Control Agents Kaffa, Siege ofRocky Mountain Spotted Fever Korean War Russia: Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs Late Blight of Potato Fungus (PhytophthoraInfestans)Sabotage Libya and WMDSalmonella Line SourceSarin Livens Projector Semtex Lyophilization ShikhanySimulants Marburg VirusSino-Japanese War MelioidosisSkatole Microencapsulation Smallpox Mustard (Sulfur and Nitrogen)Soman Mycotoxins South Africa: Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs Napalm South Korea: Chemical and Biological Weapons Nerve AgentsPrograms Newcastle DiseaseSpore Newport Facility, IndianaStabilizers North Korea: Chemical and Biological Weapons Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B Programs Stepnogorsk Novichok Sverdlovsk Anthrax Accident
16. 16. A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIES xixSyria: Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs Acheson-Lililenthal Report Actinides Tabun Airborne Alert Terrorism with CBRN Weapons Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty ThickenersAntinuclear Movement TNT Anti-Satellite (ASAT) Weapons Tobacco Mosaic VirusArms Control Tooele, UtahArms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) Toxins (Natural)Arms Race Toxoids and AntitoxinsAssured Destruction Tularemia Atomic Energy Act Tuberculosis (TB, Mycobacterium Tuberculosis) Atomic Energy Commission Typhus (Rickettsia Prowazekii)Atomic Mass/Number/Weight Atoms for Peace Unit 731 United Kingdom: Chemical and Biological Backpack Nuclear Weapons Weapons ProgramsBalance of Terror United Nations Monitoring, Verification, andBallistic Missile Defense Organization (BMDO) Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) United Nations Special Commission on Iraq Ballistic Missiles (UNSCOM)Baruch Plan United States: Chemical and Biological WeaponsBikini Island ProgramsBombers, Russian and Chinese Nuclear-Capable Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Bombers, U.S. Nuclear-Capable Boost-Phase Intercept VaccinesBottom-Up Review V-AgentsBrilliant Eyes VectorBrinkmanship VECTOR: State Research Center of Virology and British Nuclear Forces and DoctrineBiotechnologyBroken Arrow, Bent Spear Vesicants Vietnam War Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU) Reactor Vincennite (Hydrogen Cyanide) The Catholic Church and Nuclear War Chelyabinsk-40 Weteye Bomb Chernobyl World Trade Center Attack (1993)Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado World War I Chicken, Game of World War II: Biological WeaponsChinese Nuclear Forces and Doctrine World War II: Chemical WeaponsCity Avoidance Wushe IncidentCivil Defense Cold Launch Xylyl Bromide Cold War Collateral Damage Yellow Rain Command and Control Yemen Committee on the Present Danger Ypres Compellence Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) Volume II: Nuclear WeaponsConference on Disarmament Accidental Nuclear WarConference on Security and Cooperation in Accuracy Europe (CSCE)
17. 17. xx A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIESConfidence- and Security-Building Measures Equivalent Megaton(CSBMs) Escalation ContainmentEssential Equivalence Cooperative Threat Reduction (The Nunn-Lugar European Atomic Energy CommunityProgram) (EURATOM) Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Extended DeterrenceControls (COCOM) Correlation of ForcesFailsafe Counterforce Targeting Fallout CountermeasuresFast Breeder Reactors Counterproliferation Fat Man Countervailing StrategyFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Countervalue Targeting Federation of American Scientists (FAS) Coupling Firebreaks CredibilityFirst Strike Crisis Stability Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) Critical Nuclear Weapons Design InformationFission Weapons(CNWDI) Flexible Response Criticality and Critical MassThe Football Cruise MissilesForward-Based Systems Cuban Missile Crisis Fractional Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS)Fratricide Damage LimitationFrench Nuclear Forces and Doctrine Data Exchanges Fuel Fabrication The Day AfterFusion Dealerting Decapitation G8 Global Partnership Program Declared FacilityGaither Commission Report Decoys Game Theory Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Gas-Graphite Reactors Dense Pack Geiger Counter Department of Defense (DOD)Global Protection Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) Department of Energy (DOE) Graphite Department of Homeland Security (DHS)Gravity Bombs Depleted Uranium (U-238) Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles (GLCMs) Deployment Ground Zero Depressed Trajectory Gun-Type Devices Dtente Deterrence Half-Life DeuteriumHanford, Washington DisarmamentHard and Deeply Buried Targets Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line Harmel Report DownloadingHeavy Bombers Dual-Track DecisionHeavy ICBMsHeavy Water Early WarningHedge Emergency Action Message (EAM) Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Enola GayHiroshima Enrichment Horizontal Escalation Entry into Force Hot Line Agreements
18. 18. A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIES xxiHydrogen Bomb Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) ImplementationMobile ICBMs Implosion Devices Moratorium Improvised Nuclear DevicesMoscow Antiballistic Missile System Inadvertent EscalationMultilateral Nuclear Force Indian Nuclear Weapons ProgramMultiple Independently Targetable Reentry Vehicle Inertial Navigation and Missile Guidance(MIRV) Institute for Advanced StudyMultiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Nagasaki Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program National Command Authority Iraqi Nuclear Forces and Doctrine National Emergency Airborne Command Post Isotopes (NEACP) Israeli Nuclear Weapons Capabilities and Doctrine National Strategic Target List National Technical Means Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of theNeutron Bomb (Enhanced Radiation Weapon)Korean Peninsula Neutrons Nevada Test Site Kiloton New Look Kwajalein Atoll Nike Zeus No First Use Launch on Warning/Launch under Attack NonNuclear Weapons States Launchers Nonproliferation Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryNorth American Aerospace Defense Command Light-Water Reactors (NORAD) Limited Nuclear War North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT)North Korean Nuclear Weapons Program Lithium Nuclear Binding Energy Little BoyNuclear Emergency Search Teams (NESTs) Long-Range Theater Nuclear Forces Nuclear Fuel Cycle Los Alamos National LaboratoryNuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) Low Enriched Uranium (LEU)Nuclear Planning Group Nuclear Posture Review Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle (MARV)Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Manhattan Project Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers (NRRCs) Massive Retaliation Nuclear Suppliers Group Medium-Range Ballistic Missiles Nuclear Taboo Megaton Nuclear Test Ban MegawattNuclear Warhead Storage and Transportation Midgetman ICBMsSecurity (Russia) Military Technical Revolution (Revolution inNuclear Weapons Effects Military Affairs) Nuclear Weapons Free Zones (NWFZs) Minimum DeterrenceNuclear Weapons States Ministry of Atomic Energy (MINATOM) Nuclear Winter Minuteman ICBM Missile Defense Oak Ridge National Laboratory Missile Gap On the Beach
19. 19. xxii A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIESOne-Point Detonation/One-Point Safe Research Reactors On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA)Restricted Data (RD) Open Skies Treaty Reykjavik Summit Outer Space TreatyRide Out Overhead Surveillance Rocky Flats, Colorado Roentgen Equivalent Man (Rem) Pakistani Nuclear Weapons Program Rumsfeld Commission Pantex Facility, TexasRussian Nuclear Forces and Doctrine Parity Payload Safeguard Antiballistic Missile (ABM) System Peaceful CoexistenceSafeguards Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Sandia National Laboratories Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty (PNET) Savannah River Site, South Carolina Peacekeeper Missile Sea-Launched Cruise Missiles (SLCMs) Penetration AidsSecond Strike Permissive Action Link (PAL)Selective Options Pershing II Sentinel Antiballistic Missile System Phased-Array AntennaShort-Range Attack Missiles (SRAM) Pit Shrouding Plutonium Silo Basing Polaris SLBMs/SSBNs Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) Portsmouth Enrichment FacilitySkybolt Poseidon SLBMs/SSBNsSouth African Nuclear Weapons Program Post-Attack Command and Control SystemSouth Korean Nuclear Weapons Program (PACCS) Space-Based Infrared Radar System (SBIRS) Preemptive Attack Spartan Missile Presidential Nuclear InitiativesSprint Missile Pressurized-Water Reactors (PWRs) Sputnik Preventive WarStanding Consultative Commission (SCC) Primary Stage Stealth Bomber (B-2 Spirit) Proliferation Stockpile Stewardship Program Proliferation Security Initiative Strategic Air Command (SAC) and Strategic Pugwash Conferences Command (STRATCOM) Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I and SALT Quadrennial Defense ReviewII) Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I) Radiation Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) Radiation Absorbed Dose (Rad) Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) Radiological Dispersal Device Strategic Defenses The RAND CorporationStrategic Forces Rapacki PlanStrategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) RatificationStrategic Rocket Forces Reactor OperationsSubmarines, Nuclear-Powered Ballistic Missile Reasonable Sufficiency(SSBNs) Reciprocal Fear of Surprise AttackSubmarine-Launched Ballistic Missiles (SLBMs) Reconnaissance Satellites Sufficiency Red Mercury Superiority Reentry VehiclesSurety Reliability Surprise Attack Conference ReprocessingSurveillance
20. 20. A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIES xxiiiSurvivability Unilateral Initiative United Nations Special Commission on Iraq Tactical Nuclear Weapons(UNSCOM) Telemetry United States Air Force Terminal PhaseUnited States Army Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD) United States Navy Theater Missile Defense United States Nuclear Forces and Doctrine Thermonuclear BombUranium Three Mile Island Three-Plus-Three ProgramVerification Threshold States Threshold Test Ban Treaty (TTBT)Warfighting Strategy TinianWarhead Titan ICBMs Warsaw Pact Tous AsimutsWassenaar Arrangement Transporter-Erector-LauncherWeapons-Grade Material Triad Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Trident Trinity Site, New MexicoX-Ray Laser Tritium Two-Man RuleYieldU-2 Zangger Committee Underground Testing Zone of Peace
21. 21. Introduction: Chemical and In the United States, there are various legal and Biological Weapons academic definitions of weapons of mass destruc- Eric A. Croddy tion (WMD), although not everyone may agree on any of them. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) defines WMD as, Weapons that are capa- ble of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers Army Marshal Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov. In of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be fact, it was this speech that highlighted for U.S. pol- high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, icy makers the real or perceived threat from the So- and radiological weapons, but exclude the means viet Union, particularly in terms of the latters pre- of transporting or propelling the weapon wheresumed arsenal of chemical and biological such means is a separable and divisible part of the weaponry. As such, Zhukovs speech invigorated weapon.1 United States Cold War research into WMD, in- According to the DOD, conventional explosives cluding biological weaponry.4 During the Cold War, also can be considered WMD. And this is reason- the United Statesand, to a much greater extent, able, especially when one considers the cumulativethe Soviet Unionamassed large chemical and bi- number of deaths caused by gunpowder since its in-ological weapons stockpiles. The threat posed by vention in the tenth century and by nitroglycerinethese stockpiles has diminished greatly since the since its invention in the nineteenth century.2 But crumbling of the Berlin wall. the underlying assumption of what makes a Regional threats posed by state-funded mili- weapon massively destructive is the idea that these taries from chemical and biological weapons also weapons can cause simultaneous mass casualties. have declined. By the end of 2003, the U.S. govern- Nuclear weapons (dealt with separately in Volumement had admitted that there was little evidence II) are an obvious category of WMD, but radiolog- that Iraq had possessed large chemical or biological ical weapons (such as so-called dirty bombs are lessweapon stockpiles after the mid-1990s. This has likely to cause mass injury or death (see Radiologi-since led both the United States and British govern- cal Dispersal Device in volume II).3ments to begin inquiries into the faulty prewar in- Highly toxic chemical compoundsthe nerve telligence on Iraq that was in large part the basis for agents being prime candidatescould comprisejustifying Operation Iraqi Freedom in March 2003.5 WMD, for example, if delivered effectively againstOther regional threats, however, still remain. an urban target. Biological agentsthat is, Among these, states such as Syria and North Korea pathogens and toxins derived from plants or ani-are suspected of possessing chemical and biological malsmight also constitute WMD if delivered effi- weapons. Their bellicose posture regarding their ciently. When compared to conventional and chem-immediate neighbors and regional rivals, as well as ical weapons, biological agents have the greatest their possession of long-range delivery systems potential to cause mass casualties, and, theoretically, (such as Scud missiles), make these threats impossi- theirs could easily exceed the casualties caused by ble to ignore. By contrast, Libyan leader Mohamar the largest nuclear weapon. Qaddafi stated in early 2004 that he would re- In terms of referring to nuclear, chemicalandnounce the possession of WMD, which demon- by inference, biologicalweapons, the termstrates how quickly the threat of weapons of mass weapons of mass destruction first came into use destruction seems to rise and fall on the global in 1956 when it was used in a speech by Soviet Redagenda.xxv
22. 22. xxvi INTRODUCTIONIndividuals and terrorist organizations also are of chemical or biological warfare. In an excellent in- reportedly interested in using chemical or biologicaltroduction to chemical weapons, a short book pub- agents in their operations. A salient example was alished by the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army dis- statement by a self-proclaimed spokesman for the cusses a case of CW (chemical warfare) from terrorist organization al-Qaeda, who said in JuneChinas early history: In the Zuochuan, it is written 2002, We have the right to kill 4 million Ameri-that in the sixth century to about the fifth century cans2 million of them childrenand to exile B.C.E., An official of the noble princes of the Xia, twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds ofcame from the Jin to attack the [forces of] Qin, and thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight thempoisoned the Jing River, killing more than a division with chemical and biological weapons, so as to af- of men. Another case is cited: In the year 1000 flict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted [C.E.], there was one named Tangfu, who made poi- the Muslims because of the [Americans] chemical son fire grenades and gave them to the Chao court and biological weapons.6of the Song dynasty. The poisonous smoke ball, It is not clear as of this writing whether any indi- containing arsenic oxide (As2O3) and a type of poi- viduals or groups will be able to carry out an attackson derived from crotonaldehyde (see the Arsenicals using chemical or biological warfare agents, at leastlisting), looked a bit like a precursor to a chemical in a manner that could cause more deaths than thegas grenade. After alighting, this weapon would September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade issue forth smoke to poison the enemy and thus Center (2,749 dead) and the Pentagon (184 dead). weaken their ability to fight.8 In 2001, the biological agent that causes anthraxThese same authors also point out that this is a killed five people when an unknown actor or groupfar cry from what one expects in modern times, for mailed Bacillus anthracis spores through the U.S.back then chemical warfare was just in its infancy, postal system. On February 3, 2004, envelopes con- and not only were its methods crude but its utility in taining ricin toxin were discovered at the office of actually killing people was limited. Because of this, the U.S. Senate majority leader and at a mail sortingchemical weapons were regarded as a method to facility for the White House. These incidents involv-generally assist in conducting warfare, and at the ing ricin resulted in no injuries, but justifiably time did not draw any particular attention. Coming caused much concern. into the recent era, as the developments in technol-ogy continued, chemical weapons then really began A Brief History of WMD to demonstrate their real menace.9 The historical record shows that mass poisonings Another premodern military tactic that is often and the occasional plot to spread disease amongdescribed as a form of BW (biological warfare) is armies and civilian populations go back many cen-the siege of Kaffa (1346 C.E.), in modern Feodosia, turies.7 Still, chemical and biological warfareUkraine. During a campaign by Mongol forces to (CBW)sometimes referred to in military parlance defeat a heavily defended city of mostly Genoese as bugs and gasis essentially a modern phe- merchants, bubonic plague struck the area: The nomenon. It is modern in the sense that the scienceTartars died as soon as the signs of disease appeared and industry required to produce these types ofon their bodies: swellings in the armpit or groin WMD have only existed since the early 1900s. How-caused by coagulating humors, followed by a putrid ever, there may indeed have been designs to usefever. The dying Tartars, stunned and stupefied by chemical or biological agents as a means of warfarethe immensity of the disaster brought about by the (or possibly terrorism) before the Industrial Revolu-disease, and realizing that they had no hope of es- tion. Before the late nineteenth century (the time ofcape, lost interest in the siege. But they ordered Louis Pasteur and many developments in chem- corpses to be placed in catapults and lobbed into the istry), however, the requisite scientific knowledgecity in the hope that the intolerable stench would and engineering capacity were insufficient to bringkill everyone inside. . . .10 We note here that any such ideas to fruition. Obviously, this is nostench was considered in the pre-germ theory era longer the case. to be responsible for disease. Thus, miasmas, nox- Many books and articles that discuss CBW often ious effluvia, or corrupt vapors (febres pestilen- introduce the subject by bringing up past examples tiales) were synonymous with the spread of deadly
23. 23. INTRODUCTION xxviiepidemicsplague (causative organism: Yersinia however, that horrific BW experiments were con- pestis) being among the most notorious.11ducted upon Chinese civilians and prisoners ofThe suggestion later made by historians that thewar.12 It is possible that some Allied soldiers, includ- Mongols were in fact able to spread bubonicing American and British personnel, were experi- plague by hurling disease-ridden corpses over themented upon by Ishii Shiro (see the Sino-Japanese fortress walls is an intriguing one. During the four-War listing) and his scientists, but this has not been teenth century, however, a germ theory of diseaseconfirmed. Apart from the East Asian theater of op- did not exist. How would the people of that eraerations, however, no offensive use of CBW was have known exactly how the disease could spread? conducted in World War II. Suggestions that the So- What they could not have known is that bubonic viet Red Army used tularemia (caused by the bac- plague is spread by fleas, which collect the bacteriaterium Francisella tularensis) against invading Nazi Yersinia pestis (the causative organism of plague) forces at the Stalingrad front are not supported by through feeding upon infected rats. Fleas do not the available evidence.13 German and Allied military linger near the body once the temperature of the scientists did pursue the manufacture of CW agents host (be it rodent or human) cools following in very large quantities, but these never were used in death, making it rather unlikely that the cadavers conflict. would have done much to spread the plague. In theIn the Korean War (19501953), Chinese offi- end, it was not the use of projectile cadavers, butcials, during armistice negotiations, accused the more likely the exceptionally large rat population United States of using biological weapons. Although around the Black Sea that led to a pandemicthere is evidence that at least some of the commu- throughout the region (and indeed much of Eu-nist Chinese leaders truly believed the allegations rope). One could probably conclude, however, thatconcerning BW in Korea14, there is no evidence that the Mongols did have the intent to spread diseasethe U.S. military used chemical or biological among their enemy, and at least in this respect they weapons during the conflict.15 conducted an early form of BW. During the Cold War, chemical agents becameeven deadlier. The United States and the Soviet CBW in the Modern EraUnion stockpiled the German G-series nerve agents The stunningly high rate of casualties that occurred (sarin and soman), as well as the newer V-agents. in World War I had much do with the machine gunPerhaps more dangerous was the development of and rapid-fire artillery, but it also was caused inweaponized biological agents. The United States large part by the great number of men that wereand its allies during World War II had pursued a brought to the battlefields. World War I marks the rudimentary offensive and defensive BW program. emergence of gas warfare: the use of chlorine, Later, work continued using a variety of infectious phosgene, and other toxic chemicals. For the mostagents, including the causative organisms of an- part, these were used in vain attempts to achieve athrax, tularemia, and less deadlybut highly effi- breakthrough against well-defended armies in cientmicrobes such as Venezuelan equine en- trenches. Later, chemical warfare agents such as sul-cephalitis. fur mustard entered the scene when previous com- The controversy over the potential use of CBW pounds were found to be less effective on the battle-grew increasingly protracted during the Vietnam field. Unlike chemicals used during the early stages War, particularly when the U.S. military used herbi- of the conflict, mustard is not gaseous, but an oily cides (such as Agent Orange) against Viet Cong- liquid. It did not kill large numbers of troops, but itcontrolled areas. In a variety of instances, riot con- caused debilitating injury by irritating the skin, eyes, trol agents (RCAs or tear gas) were used against the and upper airways. First used in 1917, it was re-Viet Cong and Viet Minh regular army. Although sponsible for the most injuries caused by chemical such forms of weaponry were not intended to cause weapons during World War I.death, their use in an unpopular war heightened the Japan conducted CBW against China from 1937sensitivity of the U.S. government to public percep- to 1945. It is unknown whether the use of chemicalstions of its CBW policies. As a consequence of Viet- against Chinese soldiers gave the Japanese army anam and high-profile incidents involving nerve significant advantage on the battlefield. It is certain, agents at storage facilities in Utah and Okinawa,
24. 24. xxviii INTRODUCTIONPresident Richard Nixon ended most U.S. chemical tended level of death and destruction, but it caused and biological programs in 1969. significant structural damage. Yousef reportedly When President Nixon renounced offensive BWconsidered the use of cyanidea toxic blood and the United States stopped the production of bi-agentduring the 1993 bombing. However, tech- ological weapons, the Soviet Union was only gettingnical difficulties and other unknown factors pre- started. In 1979, a mysterious outbreak of anthrax invented Yousef from designing such a device.18 Sverdlovsk, Siberia (now Yekaterinberg) was sus- There was another wake-up call to the threat of pected by Western intelligence to have been caused WMD, this time in Tokyo, Japan, when a guru by a BW-related accident. (After many years of de- named Shoko Asahara instructed followers to use nials, Russia admitted in the 1990s that the nerve agents (sarin) against his real or perceived en- Sverdlovsk outbreak was caused by Soviet militaryemies. In 1995, Shoko Asaharas cult (Aum Shin- work with BW agents.) By the late 1980s, the Sovietrikyo) struck at the Tokyo authorities by releasing a BW apparatus (Biopreparat) had assembled the nerve agent on the subway system. The death toll worlds largest infrastructure devoted to the devel- was 12, with thousands injured. The end result of opment of biological weapons. The Soviet arsenal the Tokyo subway attack was less than many experts included the standard agents, anthrax, tularemia,expected from a WMD attack. Still, it made a and a particularly virulent form of plague. But it tremendous impact, not only on Japanese society had also weaponized smallpox, placing it in a liquid but also on how governments around the world form to be delivered by intercontinental ballistic reevaluated the CBW terrorist threat. missiles.16 Boris Yeltsin formally ended the program Improvised devices made by Palestinian terror- in 1992.17 ists using toxic chemicals have been a particular Iraq had already used large amounts of chemicalconcern to Israel. But death and injury caused by (but not biological) weapons against Iranian troopsshrapnel (ball bearings, nails, bolts, etc. made into and Kurdish populations during its 19801988 con-projectiles by an exploding device) comprise the flict with Iran. After the first Gulf War (19901991), largest portion of the casualties inflicted by Palestin- subsequent inspections conducted by United Na- ian suicide bombers. In 2002, however, it was re- tions personnel revealed that Iraq had undertaken aported that Israeli intelligence believed Palestinian serious effort to develop chemical, biological, nu-homicide bombers to have put rat poison in their clear, and possibly radiological weapons. In 1995, explosive devices. According to this assessment, ter- the western world was particularly alarmed by therorists put an anticoagulant type of rodenticide on scope of the Iraqi BW program. Suspecting that Iraqshrapnel. Following bombings that occurred in had maintained at least a remnant of its WMD pro-2002, Israeli doctors made note of excessive bleeding grams, including CBW agents and missile delivery in certain bombing victims. This type of poison systems, the United States led a war against Iraq be-(warfarin) acts very slowly in mammals, making its ginning in 2003 that toppled the Iraqi regime. Noutility and effect somewhat doubtful.19 There is caches of CBW agents have yet been found in Iraq other evidence that Palestinian terrorists have been by coalition forces since their occupation of Iraq.attempting to use other types of toxic chemicals inimprovised explosive devices.20 The Chemical and Biological Threat Today Now that Saddam Husseins Baath Party has lost The world after September 11, 2001 has certainly control of Iraq and Libya has offered to abandon its changed, but even before then experts such asWMD programs, there is a lower risk of seeing Michael Osterholm, Jessica Stern, and Jonathan CBW on the battlefield among national armies. Tucker had worried about the prospect that terror- Syria and North Korea still retain a significant ists might obtain and use WMD. In 1993, Ramzichemical weapons capability. But even skeptics of Yousef made the first attempt to destroy the World arms control treaties such as the 1993 Chemical Trade Center. Yousef and his cohorts might haveWeapons Convention (CWC), the 1972 Biological hoped that the towers would fall over in dominoand Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), and in- fashion, killing upwards of 250,000 people. Instead, formal arrangements such as the Australia Group the bomb they planted killed six people and injuredmust concede that some progress has recently been more than 1,000. The attack failed to achieve the in-made on the nonproliferation front. It is increas-
25. 25. INTRODUCTION xxixingly apparent that the world community has sus-somewhat justified) fear of radiation by the tained the recent momentum toward the elimina-general public would no doubt cause great tion of chemical and biological weapons, despiteanxiety at the very least, perhaps even panic. some notable setbacks.Thus, RDDs are sometimes referred to as Although the United States and other developedweapons of mass disruption, as opposed to countries seem to be headed toward complete (if WMD.4. William Patrick, Biological Weapons Historical slow) chemical and biological disarmament, they Overview, Chemical & Biological Warfare continue to prepare their militaries for CBW de-Proliferation Course (Washington, DC: Central fense in terms of materials and training. This is pru-Intelligence Agency, Biological Warfare Branch, dent, but one could make the argument that mod- December 1995). ern militaries are not likely to encounter chemical or 5. Global Security Newswire, Powell Says Knowing biological weapons in organized combat. The moreTrue Iraqi WMD Capability Might Have likely threat is from terrorists using toxic chemicalsAffected War Decision, 3 February 2004, or infectious agents. This is unnerving, but terrorists http://www.nti.org. have thus far made little effective use of these types 6. S. Abu Gheith, In the Shadow of the Lances, of unconventional weapons. And yet, despite recentMiddle East Research Institute, Special Dispatch gains in the war against international terrorism, Series no. 388, 12 June 2002, http://memri.org/. WMD will continue to pose a threat to society. It is 7. Erhard Geissler and John Ellis van Courtland Moon, eds., Biological and Toxin Weapons: difficult to conceive of a worse scenario than the ef- Research, Development and Use from the Middle fective use of chemical or biological weapons by ter- Ages to 1945, SIPRI Chemical & Biological rorists who act with little or no restraint. By foster- Warfare Studies, No. 18 (Oxford, UK: Oxford ing an understanding of CBW agents, weapons, andUniversity Press, 1999); James S. Ketchum and their potential role in conflict, it is hoped that this Frederick R. Sidell, Incapacitating Agents, in volume will increase awarenessand vigilanceto Frederick R. Sidell, Ernest T. Takafuji, and defeat these threats. David R. Franz, Textbook of Military Medicine, Part I: Warfare, Weaponry, and the Casualty: Notes:Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological 1. U.S. Department of Defense, Defense TechnicalWarfare (Borden Institute, Walter Reed ArmyInformation Center (DTIC), December 2003,Medical Center: Washington, D.C.: 1997) pp.http://www.dtic.mil/.289290. 2. Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in 8. Cheng Shuiting and Shi Zhiyuan, MilitaryChina, vol. 5, pt. 7: Military Technology: The Technology Information Handbook: ChemicalGunpowder Epic (New York: CambridgeWeapons, second edition (Beijing: PeoplesUniversity Press, 1986), p. 9. As a BritishLiberation Army Press, 1999; second printingdiplomat (and to his death a committed January 2000), p. 7.Marxist), Needham was among the first to alert9. Ibid.the world to Japans use of chemical weapons 10. Quoted in Mark Wheelis, Biological Warfareagainst China during World War II. before 1914, in Erhard Geissler and John Ellis 3. A radiological dispersal device (RDD) or dirtyvan Courtland Moon, eds., Biological and Toxinbomb employs a high explosive (such asWeapons: Research, Development, and Use fromdynamite) to disperse radiological materials the Middle Ages to 1945, SIPRI Chemical &(such as cobalt60, cesium137, or Biological Warfare Studies no. 18 (Oxford:strontium90) across a large area. This wouldOxford University Press, 1999), p. 14.not result in a massive radiological hazard as no11. Michael R. Gilchrist, Disease & Infection in thefission takes place. Rather, the contaminated area American Civil War, The American Biologywould likely remain off limits to people until itTeacher, vol. 60, no. 4, April 1998, p. 258.was fully cleared of radiating materialsa time- 12. Hal Gold, Unit 731 Testimony. Tokyo: Yen Books,consuming and expensive process. The 1996.immediate effects of the explosion itself might of 13. Eric Croddy and Sarka Krcalova, Tularemia,course cause death and injury, but few casualtiesBiological Warfare (BW), and the Battle forwould be expected from the radiological sourcesStalingrad (19421943), Military Medicine, vol.themselves. Nonetheless, the disproportionate (if166, no. 10, October 2001, pp. 837838.
26. 26. xxx INTRODUCTION 14. Chen Jian, Maos China and the Cold War 18. John J. Parachini, The World Trade Center(Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, Bombers (1993), in John B. Tucker, ed., Toxic2001), p. 110.Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and15. Chinas Role in the Chemical and BiologicalBiological Weapons (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,Disarmament Regimes, The Nonproliferation2000), p. 201.Review, vol. 9, no. 1, spring 2002, pp. 1647.19. Sue Shaw and Jeremy Anderson, Warfarin16. Richard Preston, The Bioweaponeers, The New Ingestion, Evidence Centre Report, MonashYorker, 9 March 1998, p. 63.Medical Center, Australia, 18 March 1999.17. Ken Alibek, Biohazard (New York: Random 20. Andrew Chang, Bombs and Bioterror, 6 AugustHouse, 1998), p. 133. 2002, http://www.ABCnews.com.
27. 27. Incidents of chemical or biological warfare (CBW)Chronology: Chemical in history are of great interest, but they are also quite problematicat least until we arrive at mod-and Biological Weapons ern times (the postWorld War I era). We say prob- lematic because until the twentieth century, science had not sufficiently explained the roles of toxic chemicals or infectious disease in order to effec- vice causing mass casualties, certainly not all events tively utilize them in warfare. Nor had industry would necessarily qualify. been developed in like fashion to exploit chemistryThis will not stop us from trying to delineate a or biology for the purpose of waging battle. When it chronology of examples that are relevant to CBW. comes to chemical weaponry in particular, Augustin Here are listed a selection of historical events, with Prentiss put it quite well:an effort to describe them by category: either chem-ical or biological weaponry.History records numerous earlier but abortive at-tempts to utilize the powers of chemistry for mili- Sixth Century B.C.Assyrians reportedly usedtary ends . . ..With the exception of Greek fire [use ergot fungus (Clavicepsof petroleum-based incendiaries, ca. 7th centurypurpurea) to poison theirC.E.], none of them produced important resultsenemys water wellsand none permanently challenged the supremacyof existing weapons. They are of interest to us onlyas indicating mans eagerness to experiment with431404 B.C.Spartan armies use sulfurany means that promise to promote his fortunesand toxic arsenic smokein battle and his final dependence upon technical during Peloponnesian Warknowledge to produce such means. (Prentiss, p.xvi)Fourth Century B.C. Chinese engineers usearsenic against Quite the same can be said of biological underground sappers. weaponry. In either case of chemical or biological weapons, the basic knowledge to understand the Circa 200 B.C.Officers in Hannibals army scientific disciplines behind them was inadequateadulterate the wine of until the nineteenth century, when significant ad- African rebels with vances were made in fields such as organic chem- mandrake, which contains istry and microbiology. Still, it then took the latter belladonna alkaloids stages of the Industrial Revolution for nations to causing hallucinations. develop the capacity for mass production of chemicals that would play a noteworthyalbeit187 B.C.Ambraciots (Greece) overall insignificantrole in World War Iemploy irritating smoke (19141918). against Roman soldiers Another criterion to consider is the scope of the purported attack. Was this a poisoning of a few in-7th Century C.E.The Byzantine architect, dividuals, or a whole army? Keeping in context withCallinicus (Kallinikos), a weapon of mass destruction (WMD), that is, a de- reportedly invents the firstxxxi
28. 28. xxxii CHRONOLOGY liquid incendiaryGreek asphyxiating or deleteriousFire. gases. (Mauroni, p. 81)Circa 1040 Scottish king poisons wine 1914French troops use tear gasusing a belladonna-likegrenades against German(sleepy nightshade) herb positions in World War Iand gives to Norwegianenemies as provisions22 April 1915 German military usesunder pretense ofbarrage of chlorine gassurrender. Scots thenagainst Allied trenches inslaughter the incapacitatedYpres, Belgium.Norwegians. 12 July 1917Germany uses mustard 1347 Mongolians lay siege toagent against Allied troopsKaffa (in modern Ukraine)at Ypres, Belgium.and throw corpses over citywalls to spread bubonic19161918 German agents infect beastsplague. May have of burdenincludingcontributed to Black Death,horses bound for use bywhich killed approximately Allies in Europeusing50 million people throughglanders and anthrax.the fourteenth century. 1919In midst of the Russian civil 1672 Bishop of Mnsterwar, British troops useattempted the use of adamsiteatropine-like drug in(diphenylaminearsine, DM)grenades in siege againstagainst Bolsheviks.city of Groningen. Attackbackfires. 1922The U.S. delegates at the Washington Arms 1767 British plot to supply clothsConference table a proposalfrom a smallpox hospital to abolish chemical warfare,ward to American Indianbut France ultimately rejectstribes in hopes of spreading the treaty because ofdisease. Unknown if this stipulations regardingstrategy was ultimatelysubmarines.successful. 17 June 1925Geneva Protocol for the 1855 Sir Lyon Playfair suggests Prohibition of the Use inusing cyanide-containing War of Asphyxiating,chemicals against RussianPoisonous or other gases,troops during Crimeanand of BacteriologicalWar, but this tactic never Methods of Warfare isfound approval by thesigned by nearly thirtyBritish High Command.countries.29 July 1899 First Hague Convention 1936German chemists synthesizesigned, prohibiting the use first nerve agents to beof projectiles the sole object weaponized, includingof which is the diffusion of tabun (GA).
29. 29. CHRONOLOGY xxxiii19371942 During Sino-Japanese War, employs riot control Japan employs chemicalagentschiefly CSin and biological weaponscertain military operations, against Chinese troops andcreating controversy, civilians.especially for war critics at home and abroad. 1939Japanese attempt to poison water with Salmonella1967 With possible support from enterica Typhi (causative the Soviet Union, Egyptian agent in typhoid) in the so-forces use chemical called Nomonhon Incidentweapons, including mustard in a biological attack on agent and some kind of Soviet troops, butorganophosphate (nerve apparently is unsuccessful. agent) against Yemeni royalists. 1935Italian troops under Benito Mussolini begin using25 November 1969 U.S. president Richard M. chemical weapons (mustard Nixon renounces the agent) against Ethiopians.offensive use of biological weapons, ordering that the 1942United States undertakesU.S. program be study of biological warfare dismantled. (BW) agents, including defensive and offensive10 April 1972Great Britain, the Soviet preparations. Union, and the United States sign the Biological December 1943 German Luftwaffe attacksand Toxin Weapons Allied ships carrying sulfurConvention. mustard in Bari, Italy, leading to more than 600 1973 Following the Yom Kippur casualties. War (fought between Israel and Arab countries), 1956Soviet Marshal and DefenseU.S. military analysts Minister Georgy Zhukovdiscover that Egypt mentions the use of possessed armored various means of massvehicles equipped with destruction, such as atomic,protection against nuclear, thermonuclear, chemical chemical, and biological and bacteriological (NBC) warfare. This leads weapons, stirring greatto concern that Warsaw interest and anxiety in the Pact forces, supported by West. (Mauroni, p. 85)the Soviet Union, were prepared to use NBC 1962The U.S. military beginsweapons. herbicide operations in Vietnam War, including the 19731974The Soviet Union initiates use of Agent Orange.and establishes Biopreparat, a civilian organization 1965As the war in Vietnam devoted to producing escalates, the United Statesbiological warfare agents.
30. 30. xxxiv CHRONOLOGY26 March 1975 The Biological and Toxin suspected links to the Weapons Convention entersterrorist organization al- into force.Qaeda detonate 1,500pounds of explosive in the 1979Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis) basement of the World spores are accidentallyTrade Center in New York. released from a biological The attack does not destroy weapons facility inthe buildings, but kills six Sverdlovsk, Russia; at least people and injures more 64 people died fromthan one thousand. inhalation anthrax.Concerns arise over thepossibility that the 1983Iraq begins using chemical terrorists laced the high warfare agents, includingexplosives with chemical mustard, in the Iran-Iraqweapons in order to War (19801988). increase the number ofcasualties. JanuaryMarch 1991 A United Statesledcoalition invades Iraq in 27 June 1994Aum Shinrikyo, a newOperation Desert Storm. religious cult in Japan, usesThe goal is to force Iraqisarin nerve agent in ancompliance with Unitedassassination attempt onNations resolutions calling three judges in Matsumoto,for its withdrawal from killing seven people andKuwait and elimination of injuring over 200.its weapons of massdestruction (WMD) 20 March 1995 Aum Shinrikyo releasesprograms. A newly formedsarin nerve agent on theUnited Nations SpecialTokyo subway, killing 12Commission on Iraqpeople and injuring about(UNSCOM) searches for 1,000. Japanese policeWMD and oversees thediscover nerve agentdestruction of knownprecursors at the cultschemical and biological home base near Mt. Fujiweapons arsenals andand also learn that Aumproduction facilities until attempted to produce1998, when Iraq defiesbiological weapons.international mandates andforces UNSCOM 19 April 1995 Timothy McVeigh detonatesinspectors to leave the a 4,000-pound ammoniumcountry.nitrate fuel oil (ANFO)explosive device in a rented 13 January 1993 The Chemical Weapons truck, destroying the Alfred Convention (CWC) is open P. Murrah Federal Building for signature. in Oklahoma City,Oklahoma and killing 168 26 February 1993On 26 February 1993, a people. small group of men from the Middle East with 29 April 1997 The CWC enters into force.