Achemical weapon (CW) is a specializedmunition that uses chemicalsformulated to inflict death or harm on humans. According to theOrganisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), this can be any chemical compound intended as aweapon "or itsprecursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Munitions or other delivery devices designed to deliver chemical weapons, whether filled or unfilled, are also considered weapons themselves."[2]
Chemical weapons are classified asweapons of mass destruction (WMD), though they are distinct fromnuclear weapons,biological weapons, andradiological weapons. All may be used in warfare and are known by the military acronym NBC (for nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare). Weapons of mass destruction are distinct fromconventional weapons, which are primarily effective due to theirexplosive,kinetic, orincendiary potential. Chemical weapons can be widely dispersed in gas, liquid and solid forms, and may easily afflict others than the intended targets.Nerve gas,tear gas, andpepper spray are three modern examples of chemical weapons.[3]
Lethal unitary chemical agents and munitions are extremelyvolatile and they constitute a class of hazardous chemical weapons that have beenstockpiled by many nations. Unitary agents are effective on their own and do not require mixing with other agents. The most dangerous of these arenerve agents (GA,GB,GD, andVX) andvesicant (blister) agents, which include formulations of sulfur mustard such as H, HT, and HD. They all are liquids at normal room temperature, but become gaseous when released. Widely used during theWorld War I, the effects of so-calledmustard gas,phosgene gas, and others caused lung searing, blindness, death and maiming.
As of 2016[update],CS gas and pepper spray remain in common use for policing and riot control; CS and pepper spray are considerednon-lethal weapons. Under theChemical Weapons Convention (1993), there is a legally binding, worldwide ban on the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. However, large stockpiles of chemical weapons continue to exist, usually justified as a precaution against possible use by an aggressor. Continued storage of these chemical weapons is a hazard, as many of the weapons are now more than 50 years old, raising risks significantly.[6][7]
Chemical warfare involves using thetoxic properties ofchemical substances as weapons. This type of warfare is distinct fromnuclear warfare andbiological warfare, which together make up NBC, the military initialism for Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical (warfare or weapons). None of these fall under the termconventional weapons, which are primarily effective because of their destructive potential. Chemical warfare does not depend uponexplosive force to achieve an objective. It depends upon the unique properties of the chemical agentweaponized.
A British gas bomb that was used during World War I
A lethal agent is designed to injure, incapacitate, or kill an opposing force, or deny unhindered use of a particular area of terrain.Defoliants are used to quickly kill vegetation and deny its use for cover and concealment. Chemical warfare can also be used against agriculture and livestock to promote hunger and starvation. Chemical payloads can be delivered by remote controlled container release, aircraft, or rocket. Protection against chemical weapons includes proper equipment, training, and decontamination measures.
John Singer Sargent's iconic World War I painting:Gassed, showing blind casualties on a battlefield after a mustard gas attack
Simple chemical weapons were used sporadically throughout antiquity and into the Industrial age.[8] It was not until the 19th century that the modern conception of chemical warfare emerged, as various scientists and nations proposed the use of asphyxiating or poisonous gases.[9] So alarmed were nations that multiple international treaties, discussed below, were passed – banning chemical weapons. This however did not prevent the extensiveuse of chemical weapons in World War I. The development ofchlorine gas, among others, was used by both sides to try to break the stalemate oftrench warfare. Though largely ineffective over the long run, it decidedly changed the nature of the war. In most cases the gases used did not kill, but instead horribly maimed, injured, or disfigured casualties. Estimates for military gas casualties range from 500k to 1.3 million, with a few thousand additional civilian casualties as collateral damage or production accidents.[10][11]
Theinterwar period saw occasional use of chemical weapons, mainly by multiple European colonial forces to put down rebellions. The Italians also used poison gas during their 1936invasion of Ethiopia.[12] In Nazi Germany, much research went into developing new chemical weapons, such as potentnerve agents.[13] However, chemical weapons saw little battlefield use in World War II. Both sides were prepared to use such weapons, but the Allied powers never did, and the Axis used them only very sparingly. The reason for the lack of use by the Nazis, despite the considerable efforts that had gone into developing new varieties, might have been a lack of technical ability or fears that the Allies would retaliate with their own chemical weapons. Those fears were not unfounded: the Allies made comprehensive plans for defensive and retaliatory use of chemical weapons, and stockpiled large quantities.[14][15] Japanese forces used them more widely, though only against their Asian enemies, as they also feared that using it on Western powers would result in retaliation. Chemical weapons were frequently used againstKuomintang andChinese communist troops.[16] However, the Nazis did extensively use poison gas against civilians inthe Holocaust. Vast quantities ofZyklon B gas and carbon monoxide were used in thegas chambers of Nazi extermination camps, resulting in the overwhelming majority of some three million deaths. This remains the deadliest use of poison gas in history.[17][18][19][20]
International law has prohibited the use of chemical weapons since 1899, under theHague Convention: Article 23 of the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land adopted by the First Hague Conference "especially" prohibited employing "poison and poisoned arms".[30][31] A separate declaration stated that in any war between signatory powers, the parties would abstain from using projectiles "the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases".[32]
TheWashington Naval Treaty, signed February 6, 1922, also known as the Five-Power Treaty, aimed at banning chemical warfare but did not succeed because France rejected it. The subsequent failure to include chemical warfare has contributed to the resultant increase in stockpiles.[33]
TheGeneva Protocol, officially known as theProtocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, is an International treaty prohibiting the use of chemical andbiological weapons in international armed conflicts. It was signed atGeneva June 17, 1925, and entered into force on February 8, 1928. 133 nations are listed as state parties[34] to the treaty.Ukraine is the newest signatory, acceding August 7, 2003.[35]
This treaty states that chemical and biological weapons are "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised world". And while the treaty prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons, it does not address the production, storage, or transfer of these weapons. Treaties that followed the Geneva Protocol did address those omissions and have been enacted.
The 1993Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is the most recentarms control agreement with the force ofInternational law. Its full name is theConvention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction. That agreement outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It is administered by theOrganisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), which is an independent organization based inThe Hague.[36]
The OPCW administers the terms of the CWC to 192 signatories, which represents 98% of the global population. As of June 2016[update], 66,368 of 72,525 metric tonnes, (92% of chemical weapon stockpiles), have been verified as destroyed.[37][38] The OPCW has conducted 6,327 inspections at 235 chemical weapon-related sites and 2,255 industrial sites. These inspections have affected the sovereign territory of 86 States Parties since April 1997. Worldwide, 4,732 industrial facilities are subject to inspection under provisions of the CWC.[38]
In 1985, theUnited States Congress passed legislation requiring the disposal of the stockpiled chemical agents andmunitions consisting of over 3 million chemical weapons, adding up to 31,000 tons of chemical weapons needing to be disposed of.[6] This was ordered because a timely and safe disposal of chemical weapons is far safer than chemical weapon storage.[39][7] Between the years of 1982 and 1992, theUnited States army reported approximately 1,500 leaking chemical weapons munitions, and in 1993 a 100-gallon chemical spill was reported at theTooele Army Depot in Utah consisting ofmustard agents.[6] Chemical decomposition in soil is affected by many factors, such astemperature,acidity,alkalinity, meteorological conditions, and the types of organisms present in the soil, making it difficult to assess and predict safety. Spills of persistent agents, such assulfur mustards, can remain harmful for decades.[6]
Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System prior to demolitionASwedish Army soldier wearing a chemical agentprotective suit (C-vätskeskydd) andprotection mask (skyddsmask 90)
There are three basic configurations in which these agents are stored. The first are self-contained munitions like projectiles, cartridges, mines, and rockets; these can contain propellant or explosive components. The next form are aircraft-delivered munitions.[40] Together they constitute the two forms that have beenweaponized and are ready for their intended use. The U.S. stockpile consisted of 39% of these weapon ready munitions. The final of the three forms is raw agent housed in bulk containers. The remaining 61%[40] of the US stockpile was stored in this manner.[41] Whereas these chemicals exist in liquid form at normal room temperature,[40][42] the sulfur mustards H and HD freeze in temperatures below 55 °F (12.8 °C). Mixing lewisite with distilled mustard lowers the freezing point to −13 °F (−25.0 °C).[43]
Higher temperatures are a bigger concern because the possibility of an explosion increases as the temperatures rise. A fire at one of these facilities would endanger the surrounding community as well as the personnel at the installations.[44] Perhaps more so for the community having much less access to protective equipment and specialized training.[45] TheOak Ridge National Laboratory conducted a study to assess capabilities and costs for protecting civilian populations during related emergencies,[46] and the effectiveness of expedient,in-place shelters.[47]
At the end ofWorld War II, theAllies occupiedGermany and found large stockpiles of chemical weapons that they did not know how to dispose of or deal with.[48] Ultimately, theAllies disposed large quantities of these chemical weapons into theBaltic Sea, including 32 000 tonnes of chemicalmunitions and chemical warfare agents dumped into theBornholm Basin, and another 2000 tonnes of chemical weapons in theGotland Basin.[48]
The majority of these chemical munitions were dumped into the sea while contained in simple wooden crates, leading to a rapid proliferation of chemicals.[48] Chemical Weapons being disposed in the ocean during the 20th century is not unique to theBaltic Sea, and other heavily contaminated areas where disposal occurred are the European, Japanese, Russian, and United States coasts.[7] These chemical weapons dumped in the ocean pose a continual environmental and human health risk, and chemical agents and breakdown products from said agents have recently been identified in ocean sediment near historical dumping sites.[7] When chemical weapons are dumped or otherwise improperly disposed of, the chemical agents are quickly distributed over a wide range.[48] The long term impacts of this wide-scale distribution are unknown, but known to be negative.[48] In theVietnam War of 1955–1975, a chemical weapon calledagent orange was widely used byUnited States forces.[49] TheUnited States utilizedagent orange as a type of 'tactical herbicide', aiming to destroyVietnamese foliage and plant life to easemilitary access.[49] This usage ofagent orange has left lasting impacts that are still observable today in theVietnamese environment, causingdisease,stunted growth, anddeformities.[49]
The stockpiles, which have been maintained for more than 50 years,[33] are now considered obsolete.[50]Public Law 99-145, contains section 1412, which directs theDepartment of Defense (DOD) to dispose of the stockpiles. This directive fell upon the DOD with joint cooperation from theFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).[40] The Congressional directive has resulted in the present Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program.
Historically, chemical munitions have been disposed of by land burial, open burning, and ocean dumping (referred to asOperation CHASE).[51] However, in 1969, theNational Research Council (NRC) recommended that ocean dumping be discontinued. The Army then began a study of disposal technologies, including the assessment of incineration as well as chemical neutralization methods. In 1982, that study culminated in the selection of incineration technology, which is now incorporated into what is known as thebaseline system. Construction of theJohnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS) began in 1985.
This was to be a full-scale prototype facility using the baseline system. The prototype was a success but there were still many concerns about CONUS operations. To address growing public concern over incineration, Congress, in 1992, directed the Army to evaluate alternative disposal approaches that might be "significantly safer", more cost effective, and which could be completed within the established time frame. The Army was directed to report to Congress on potential alternative technologies by the end of 1993, and to include in that report: "any recommendations that theNational Academy of Sciences makes ..."[41] In June 2007, the disposal program achieved the milestone of reaching 45% destruction of the chemical weapon stockpile.[52] TheChemical Materials Agency (CMA) releases regular updates to the public regarding the status of the disposal program.[53] On July 7, 2023, the program completed destruction of all declared chemical weapons.[54][55]
Chemical weapons are said to "make deliberate use of the toxic properties of chemical substances to inflict death".[56] At the start of World War II it was widely reported in newspapers that "entire regions of Europe" would be turned into "lifeless wastelands".[57] However, chemical weapons were not used to the extent predicted by the press.
An unintended chemical weapon release occurred at the port ofBari. AGerman attack on the evening of December 2, 1943, damaged U.S. vessels in the harbour and the resultant release from their hulls of mustard gas inflicted a total of 628 casualties.[58][59][60]
An Australian observer, who has moved into a gas-affected target area to record results, examines an un-exploded shell.
The U.S. Government was highly criticized for exposing American service members to chemical agents while testing the effects of exposure. These tests were often performed without the consent or prior knowledge of the soldiers affected.[61] Australian service personnel were also exposed as a result of the "Brook Island trials"[62] carried out by the British Government to determine the likely consequences of chemical warfare in tropical conditions; little was known of such possibilities at that time.
Some chemical agents are designed to produce mind-altering changes, rendering the victim unable to perform their assigned mission. These are classified as incapacitating agents, and lethality is not a factor of their effectiveness.[63]
Binary munitions contain two, unmixed and isolated chemicals that do not react to produce lethal effects until mixed. This usually happens just prior to battlefield use. In contrast, unitary weapons are lethal chemical munitions that produce a toxic result in their existing state.[64] The majority of the chemical weapon stockpile is unitary and most of it is stored in one-ton bulk containers.[65][66]
^Patrick Coffey,American Arsenal: A Century of Weapon Technology and Strategy (Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 152-54.
^James J. Wirtz, "Weapons of Mass Destruction" inContemporary Security Studies (4th ed.), ed. Alan Collins,Contemporary Security Studies (Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 302.
^Tokarev, Andrei; Shubin, Gennady, eds. (2011).Bush War: The Road to Cuito Cuanavale: Soviet Soldiers' Accounts of the Angolan War. Auckland Park: Jacana Media (Pty) Ltd. pp. 128–130.ISBN978-1-4314-0185-7.
_-_Gassed_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
.jpg)
