\n\
\ \';
// var pos = getPosition(document.getElementById("RightPane"));
window.scrollTo(0,300);
var wait_display = "
";
document.getElementById("RightPane").innerHTML = wait_display;
var xhttp = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhttp.onreadystatechange = function() {
if (this.readyState == 4 && this.status == 200) {
/*
var res = evalJSFromHtml(ad);
*/
document.getElementById("RightPane").innerHTML = this.responseText;
/*
evalJSFromHtml(ad);
*/
}
};
var all = "../php/data_get.php?Topic=" + Topic + "&Type=button.list.summary";
xhttp.open("GET", all, true);
xhttp.send();
}
Contents
1 Definition 2 History
2.1 Ancient and medieval times 2.2 Early modern era 2.3 Industrial era
2.3.1 World
War
War I
2.3.2 Interwar years
2.3.2.1 Use by Italians in
Libya
Libya and Ethiopia
2.3.2.2 Nerve agents
2.3.3 World
War
War II
2.3.3.1 Imperial Japanese Army 2.3.3.2 Nazi Germany 2.3.3.3 Western Allies
2.3.3.3.1 Accidental release
2.4 Post-war
2.4.1 Britain 2.4.2 United States 2.4.3 Soviet Union
2.5 Use in conflicts after World
War
War II
2.5.1 North Yemen
2.5.2 Rhodesian Bush War
2.5.3 Vietnamese border raids in Thailand
2.5.4 Iran–
Iraq
Iraq War
2.5.5 Halabja
2.5.6 Persian Gulf War
2.5.7 Angola
2.5.8 Falklands War
2.5.9 Syrian Civil War
2.6 Terrorism 2.7 Chemical weapons treaties
2.7.1 Chemical Weapons Convention
3 Technology
3.1
Chemical warfare
Chemical warfare agents
3.1.1 Persistency 3.1.2 Classes 3.1.3 Designations
3.2 Delivery
3.2.1 Dispersion 3.2.2 Thermal dissemination 3.2.3 Aerodynamic dissemination
3.3 Protection against chemical warfare
3.3.1 Decontamination
4 Sociopolitical climate
4.1 Efforts to eradicate chemical weapons
4.2
Chemical weapon
Chemical weapon proliferation
5 Chemical weapons destruction
5.1 India 5.2 Iraq 5.3 Japan 5.4 Russia 5.5 United States
6 See also 7 Notes 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links
Definition[edit]
Chemical warfare
Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or
nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons
are not primarily due to any explosive force. The offensive use of
living organisms (such as anthrax) is considered biological warfare
rather than chemical warfare; however, the use of nonliving toxic
products produced by living organisms (e.g. toxins such as botulinum
toxin, ricin, and saxitoxin) is considered chemical warfare under the
provisions of the
Chemical Weapons Convention
Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). Under this
Convention, any toxic chemical, regardless of its origin, is
considered a chemical weapon unless it is used for purposes that are
not prohibited (an important legal definition known as the General
Purpose Criterion).[2]
About 70 different chemicals have been used or stockpiled as chemical
warfare agents during the 20th century. The entire class known as
Lethal Unitary Chemical Agents and Munitions
Lethal Unitary Chemical Agents and Munitions have been scheduled for
elimination by the CWC.[3]
Under the Convention, chemicals that are toxic enough to be used as
chemical weapons, or that may be used to manufacture such chemicals,
are divided into three groups according to their purpose and
treatment:
Schedule 1 – Have few, if any, legitimate uses. These may only be
produced or used for research, medical, pharmaceutical or protective
purposes (i.e. testing of chemical weapons sensors and protective
clothing). Examples include nerve agents, ricin, lewisite and mustard
gas. Any production over 100 g must be reported to the
OPCW
OPCW and a
country can have a stockpile of no more than one tonne of these
chemicals.[citation needed]
Schedule 2 – Have no large-scale industrial uses, but may have
legitimate small-scale uses. Examples include dimethyl
methylphosphonate, a precursor to sarin also used as a flame
retardant, and thiodiglycol, a precursor chemical used in the
manufacture of mustard gas but also widely used as a solvent in inks.
Schedule 3 – Have legitimate large-scale industrial uses. Examples
include phosgene and chloropicrin. Both have been used as chemical
weapons but phosgene is an important precursor in the manufacture of
plastics and chloropicrin is used as a fumigant. The
OPCW
OPCW must be
notified of, and may inspect, any plant producing more than 30 tons
per year.
History[edit]
Part of a series on
War
History
Prehistoric Ancient Post-classical
Early Modern
Late Modern
Industrial Fourth-Gen
Battlespace
Air Cyber Information Land Sea Space
Weapons
Armor Artillery Biological Cavalry Chemical Conventional Cyber Electronic Infantry Nuclear Psychological Unconventional
Tactics
Aerial Battle Cavalry Charge Counterattack Counter-insurgency Cover Foxhole Guerrilla warfare Morale Siege Swarming Tactical objective Trench warfare
Operational
Blitzkrieg Deep operation Maneuver warfare Operational manoeuvre group
Strategy
Attrition Counter-offensive Deception Defensive Goal Naval Offensive
Grand strategy
Containment Economic warfare Limited war Military science Philosophy of war Strategic studies Total war
Organization
Command and control Doctrine Engineers Intelligence Ranks Technology and equipment
Personnel
Military recruitment Conscription Recruit training Military specialism Women in the military Children in the military Transgender people and military service Sexual harassment in the military Conscientious objection Counter recruitment
Logistics
Arms industry Materiel Supply chain management
Related
Asymmetric warfare
Broken-Backed
War
War Theory
Court-martial
Cold war
Deterrence theory
Horses in warfare
Irregular warfare
Law of war
Mercenary
Military campaign
Military operation
Network-centric warfare
Operations research
Principles of war
Proxy war
Religious war
Theater
Tripwire force
War
War crime
War
War film
War
War game
War
War novel
Wartime sexual violence
Women in war
World war
Colonial war
Lists
Battles
Military occupations
Military tactics
Operations
Sieges
War
War crimes
Wars
Weapons
Writers
v t e
Ancient and medieval times[edit]
Ancient Greek myths about
Hercules
Hercules poisoning his arrows with the venom
of the Hydra monster are the earliest references to toxic weapons in
western literature. Homer's epics, the
Iliad
Iliad and the Odyssey, allude
to poisoned arrows used by both sides in the legendary Trojan War
(
Bronze Age
Bronze Age Greece).[4]
Some of the earliest surviving references to toxic warfare appear in
the Indian epics
Ramayana
Ramayana and Mahabharata.[5] The "Laws of Manu," a
Hindu treatise on statecraft (c. 400 BC) forbids the use of poison and
fire arrows, but advises poisoning food and water. Kautilya's
"Arthashastra", a statecraft manual of the same era, contains hundreds
of recipes for creating poison weapons, toxic smokes, and other
chemical weapons. Ancient Greek historians recount that Alexander the
Great encountered poison arrows and fire incendiaries in
India
India at the
Indus basin
Indus basin in the 4th century BC.[4]
The Art of
War
War described the use of fire weapons against the enemy.
Arsenical smokes were known to the Chinese as far back as c. 1000
BC[6] and Sun Tzu's "Art of War" (c. 200 BC) advises the use of fire
weapons. In the second century BC, writings of the
Mohist
Mohist sect in
China
China describe the use of bellows to pump smoke from burning balls of
toxic plants and vegetables into tunnels being dug by a besieging
army. Other Chinese writings dating around the same period contain
hundreds of recipes for the production of poisonous or irritating
smokes for use in war along with numerous accounts of their use. These
accounts describe an arsenic-containing "soul-hunting fog", and the
use of finely divided lime dispersed into the air to suppress a
peasant revolt in 178 AD.[citation needed]
The earliest recorded use of gas warfare in the West dates back to the
fifth century BC, during the Peloponnesian
War
War between
Athens
Athens and
Sparta. Spartan forces besieging an Athenian city placed a lighted
mixture of wood, pitch, and sulfur under the walls hoping that the
noxious smoke would incapacitate the Athenians, so that they would not
be able to resist the assault that followed.
Sparta
Sparta was not alone in
its use of unconventional tactics in ancient Greece;
Solon
Solon of Athens
is said to have used hellebore roots to poison the water in an
aqueduct leading from the
River Pleistos
River Pleistos around 590 BC during the
siege of Kirrha.[4]
The earliest archaeological evidence of gas warfare is during the
Roman–Persian wars. Research carried out on the collapsed tunnels at
Dura-Europos
Dura-Europos in
Syria
Syria suggests that during the siege of the town in
the third century AD, the Sassanians used bitumen and sulfur crystals
to get it burning. When ignited, the materials gave off dense clouds
of choking sulfur dioxide gases which killed 19 Roman soldiers and a
single Sassanian, purported to be the fire-tender, in a matter of two
minutes.[7][8][9][10]
Quicklime (the old name for calcium oxide) may have been used in
medieval naval warfare - up to the use of "lime-mortars" to throw it
at the enemy ships.[11] Historian and philosopher David Hume, in his
history of England, recounts how in the reign of Henry III (r.1216 -
1272) the English Navy destroyed an invading French fleet, by blinding
the enemy fleet with quicklime. D’Albiney employed a stratagem
against them, which is said to have contributed to the victory: Having
gained the wind of the French, he came down upon them with violence;
and gassing a great quantity of quicklime, which he purposely carried
on board, he so blinded them, that they were disabled from defending
themselves.[12]
In the late 15th century, Spanish conquistadors encountered a
rudimentary type of chemical warfare on the island of Hispaniola. The
Taíno threw gourds filled with ashes and ground hot peppers at the
Spaniards to create a blinding smoke screen before launching their
attack.[13]
Early modern era[edit]
Christoph Bernhard von Galen
Christoph Bernhard von Galen tried to use toxic fumes during the siege
of the city of Groningen in 1672.
Leonardo da Vinci
Leonardo da Vinci proposed the use of a powder of sulfide, arsenic and
verdigris in the 15th century:
throw poison in the form of powder upon galleys. Chalk, fine sulfide of arsenic, and powdered verdegris may be thrown among enemy ships by means of small mangonels, and all those who, as they breathe, inhale the powder into their lungs will become asphyxiated.
It is unknown whether this powder was ever actually used. In the 17th century during sieges, armies attempted to start fires by launching incendiary shells filled with sulfur, tallow, rosin, turpentine, saltpeter, and/or antimony. Even when fires were not started, the resulting smoke and fumes provided a considerable distraction. Although their primary function was never abandoned, a variety of fills for shells were developed to maximize the effects of the smoke. In 1672, during his siege of the city of Groningen, Christoph Bernhard von Galen, the Bishop of Münster, employed several different explosive and incendiary devices, some of which had a fill that included Deadly Nightshade, intended to produce toxic fumes. Just three years later, August 27, 1675, the French and the Holy Roman Empire concluded the Strasbourg Agreement, which included an article banning the use of "perfidious and odious" toxic devices.[citation needed] Industrial era[edit]
Lyon Playfair proposed the industrial manufacture of cyanide artillery shells for use during the Crimean War.
The modern notion of chemical warfare emerged from the mid-19th century, with the development of modern chemistry and associated industries. The first proposal for the use of chemical warfare was made by Lyon Playfair, Secretary of the Science and Art Department, in 1854 during the Crimean War. He proposed a cacodyl cyanide artillery shell for use against enemy ships as way to solve the stalemate during the siege of Sevastopol. The proposal was backed by Admiral Thomas Cochrane of the Royal Navy. It was considered by the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, but the British Ordnance Department rejected the proposal as "as bad a mode of warfare as poisoning the wells of the enemy." Playfair’s response was used to justify chemical warfare into the next century: [14]
There was no sense in this objection. It is considered a legitimate
mode of warfare to fill shells with molten metal which scatters among
the enemy, and produced the most frightful modes of death. Why a
poisonous vapor which would kill men without suffering is to be
considered illegitimate warfare is incomprehensible.
War
War is
destruction, and the more destructive it can be made with the least
suffering the sooner will be ended that barbarous method of protecting
national rights. No doubt in time chemistry will be used to lessen the
suffering of combatants, and even of criminals condemned to death.
Later, during the American Civil War, New York school teacher John
Doughty proposed the offensive use of chlorine gas, delivered by
filling a 10-inch (254 millimeter) artillery shell with two to three
quarts (1.89–2.84 liters) of liquid chlorine, which could produce
many cubic feet of chlorine gas. Doughty’s plan was apparently never
acted on, as it was probably[15] presented to Brigadier General James
Wolfe Ripley, Chief of Ordnance, who was described as being
congenitally immune to new ideas.[according to whom?]
A general concern over the use of poison gas manifested itself in 1899
at the Hague Conference with a proposal prohibiting shells filled with
asphyxiating gas. The proposal was passed, despite a single dissenting
vote from the United States. The American representative, Navy Captain
Alfred Thayer Mahan, justified voting against the measure on the
grounds that "the inventiveness of Americans should not be restricted
in the development of new weapons."
World
War
War I[edit]
Main article: Chemical weapons in World
War
War I
Gas casualties from the
Battle
Battle of Estaires, April 10, 1918
A Smelling Case to allow officers to identify the gas by smell and thus act appropriately for protection and treatment
The Hague
The Hague Declaration of 1899 and the
Hague Convention of 1907
Hague Convention of 1907 forbade
the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare, yet more than
124,000 tons of gas were produced by the end of World
War
War I.
The French were the first to use chemical weapons during the First
World War, using the tear gases ethyl bromoacetate and chloroacetone.
They likely did not realize that effects might be more serious under
wartime conditions than in riot control. It is also likely that their
use of tear gas escalated to the use of poisonous gases.[16]
A Canadian soldier with mustard gas burns, ca. 1917–1918.
One of Germany's earliest uses of chemical weapons occurred on October
27, 1914, when shells containing the irritant dianisidine
chlorosulfonate were fired at British troops near Neuve-Chapelle,
France.[6]
Germany
Germany used another irritant, xylyl bromide, in artillery
shells that were fired in January 1915 at the Russians near Bolimów,
in present-day Poland.[17] The first full-scale deployment of deadly
chemical warfare agents during World
War
War I was at the Second
Battle
Battle of
Ypres, on April 22, 1915, when the Germans attacked French, Canadian
and Algerian troops with chlorine gas.[18][19][20]
A total 50,965 tons of pulmonary, lachrymatory, and vesicant
agents were deployed by both sides of the conflict, including
chlorine, phosgene, and mustard gas. Official figures declare about
1.3 million casualties directly caused by chemical warfare agents
during the course of the war. Of these, an estimated 100,000-260,000
casualties were civilians. Nearby civilian towns were at risk from
winds blowing the poison gases through. Civilians rarely had a warning
system put into place to alert their neighbors of the danger. In
addition to poor warning systems, civilians often did not have access
to effective gas masks.[21][22][20]
Football team of British soldiers with gas masks, Western Front, 1916
World
War
War I-era chemical ammunition is still found, unexploded, at
former battle, storage, or test sites and poses an ongoing threat to
inhabitants of Belgium,
France
France and other countries.[23] Camp American
University where American chemical weapons were developed and later
buried, has undergone 20 years of remediation efforts.[24][25]
After the war, the most common method of disposal of chemical weapons
was to dump them into the nearest large body of water.[26] As many as
65,000 tons of chemical warfare agents may have been dumped in the
Baltic Sea
Baltic Sea alone; agents dumped in that sea included mustard gas,
phosgene, lewisite (β-chlorovinyldichloroarsine), adamsite
(diphenylaminechloroarsine), Clark I (diphenylchloroarsine) and Clark
II (diphenylcyanoarsine).[27][28][29] Over time the containers
corrode, and the chemicals leaked out. On the sea floor, at low
temperatures, mustard gas tends to form lumps within a "skin" of
chemical byproducts. These lumps can wash onto shore, where they look
like chunks of waxy yellowish clay. They are extremely toxic, but the
effects may not be immediately apparent.[26]
Interwar years[edit]
Between World
War
War I and World
War
War II, chemical agents were
occasionally used to subdue populations and suppress rebellion.
Lenin's Soviet government employed poison gas in 1921 during the
Tambov Rebellion. An order signed by military commanders Tukhachevsky
and
Vladimir Antonov-Ovseyenko stipulated: "The forests where the
bandits are hiding are to be cleared by the use of poison gas. This
must be carefully calculated, so that the layer of gas penetrates the
forests and kills everyone hiding there."[30][31]
During the Rif
War
War in
Spanish Morocco
Spanish Morocco in 1921–1927, combined Spanish
and French forces dropped mustard gas bombs in an attempt to put down
the Berber rebellion. (See also: Chemical weapons in the Rif War)
In 1925, 16 of the world's major nations signed the
Geneva
Geneva Protocol,
thereby pledging never to use gas in warfare again. Notably, while the
United States
United States delegation under Presidential authority signed the
Protocol, it languished in the
U.S. Senate
U.S. Senate until 1975, when it was
finally ratified.
Use by Italians in
Libya
Libya and Ethiopia[edit]
In violation of the
Geneva
Geneva Protocol,[32] Italy used mustard gas and
other "gruesome measures" against
Senussi
Senussi forces in
Libya
Libya (see
Pacification of Libya, Italian colonization of Libya).[33]
Poison
Poison gas
was used against the Libyans as early as January 1928 [32] The
Italians dropped mustard gas from the air.[34]
Beginning in October 1935 and continuing into the following months
Fascist Italy used mustard gas against the Ethiopians during the
Second Italo-Abyssinian
War
War in violation of the
Geneva
Geneva Protocol.
Italian general
Rodolfo Graziani
Rodolfo Graziani first ordered the use of chemical
weapons at Gorrahei against the forces of Ras Nasibu.[35] Benito
Mussolini personally authorized Graziani to use chemical weapons.[36]
Chemical weapons dropped by warplane "proved to be very effective" and
was used "on a massive scale against civilians and troops, as well as
to contaminate fields and water supplies."[37] Among the most intense
chemical bombardment by the Italian Air Force in Ethiopia occurred in
February and March 1936, although "gas warfare continued, with varying
intensity, until March 1939."[36] J. F. C. Fuller, who was present in
Ethiopia during the conflict, stated that mustard gas "was the
decisive tactical factor in the war."[38] Some estimate that up to
one-third of Ethiopian casualties of the war were caused by chemical
weapons.[39]
The Italians' deployment of mustard gas prompted international
criticism.[35][38] In April 1936, British Prime Minister Stanley
Baldwin told Parliament: "If a great European nation, in spite of
having given its signature to the
Geneva Protocol
Geneva Protocol against the use of
such gases, employs them in Africa, what guarantee have we that they
may not be used in Europe?"[38][40] Mussolini initially denied the use
of chemical weapons; later, Mussolini and Italian government sought to
justify their use as lawful retaliation for Ethiopian
atrocities.[35][36][38]
After the liberation of Ethiopia in 1941, Ethiopia repeatedly but
unsuccessfully sought to prosecute Italian war criminals. The Allied
powers excluded Ethiopia from the
United Nations
United Nations
War
War Crimes Commission
(established 1942) because the British feared that Ethiopia would seek
to prosecute Pietro Badoglio, who had ordered the use of chemical gas
in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War, but later "became a valuable ally
against the Axis powers" after the fascist regime of Mussolini fell
and Italy switched sides to join the Allied powers.[35] In 1946, the
Ethiopians under
Haile Selassie
Haile Selassie again sought "to prosecute senior
Italian officials who had sanctioned the use of chemical weapons and
had omitted other war crimes such as torturing and executing Ethiopian
prisoners and citizens during the Italian-Ethiopian War."[35] These
attempts failed, in large part because Britain and the U.S. wished to
avoid alienating the Italian government at a time when Italy was seen
as key to containing the Soviet Union.[35]
Following World
War
War II, the Italian government denied that Italy had
ever used chemical weapons in Africa; only in 1995 did Italy formally
acknowledge that it had used chemical weapons in colonial wars.[41]
Nerve agents[edit]
The chemical structure of sarin nerve gas, developed in
Germany
Germany in
1939
Shortly after the end of World
War
War I, Germany's General Staff
enthusiastically pursued a recapture of their preeminent position in
chemical warfare. In 1923,
Hans von Seeckt
Hans von Seeckt pointed the way, by
suggesting that German poison gas research move in the direction of
delivery by aircraft in support of mobile warfare. Also in 1923, at
the behest of the German army, poison gas expert Dr. Hugo Stoltzenberg
negotiated with the
USSR
USSR to build a huge chemical weapons plant at
Trotsk, on the Volga river.
Collaboration between
Germany
Germany and the
USSR
USSR in poison gas continued on
and off through the 1920s. In 1924, German officers debated the use of
poison gas versus non-lethal chemical weapons against civilians.
Chemical warfare
Chemical warfare was revolutionized by Nazi Germany's discovery of the
nerve agents tabun (in 1937) and sarin (in 1939) by Gerhard Schrader,
a chemist of IG Farben.
IG Farben
IG Farben was Germany's premier poison gas manufacturer during World
War
War II, so the weaponization of these agents cannot be considered
accidental.[42] Both were turned over to the German Army Weapons
Office prior to the outbreak of the war.
The nerve agent soman was later discovered by Nobel Prize laureate
Richard Kuhn
Richard Kuhn and his collaborator Konrad Henkel at the Kaiser Wilhelm
Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg in spring 1944.[43][44]
The Germans developed and manufactured large quantities of several
agents, but chemical warfare was not extensively used by either side.
Chemical troops were set up (in
Germany
Germany since 1934) and delivery
technology was actively developed.
World
War
War II[edit]
Imperial Japanese Army[edit]
Japanese
Special
Special Naval Landing Force wearing gas masks and rubber
gloves during a chemical attack near Chapei in the
Battle
Battle of Shanghai
Despite the 1899 Hague Declaration IV, 2 - Declaration on the Use of
Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or
Deleterious Gases,[45] Article 23 (a) of the 1907 Hague Convention IV
- The Laws and Customs of
War
War on Land,[46] and a resolution adopted
against
Japan
Japan by the
League of Nations
League of Nations on May 14, 1938, the Imperial
Japanese Army frequently used chemical weapons. Because of fear of
retaliation, however, those weapons were never used against
Westerners, but against other Asians judged "inferior" by imperial
propaganda. According to historians
Yoshiaki Yoshimi and Kentaro
Awaya, gas weapons, such as tear gas, were used only sporadically in
1937 but in early 1938, the
Imperial Japanese Army
Imperial Japanese Army began full-scale
use of sneeze and nausea gas (red), and from mid-1939, used mustard
gas (yellow) against both
Kuomintang
Kuomintang and Communist Chinese troops.[47]
According to historians
Yoshiaki Yoshimi and Seiya Matsuno, the
chemical weapons were authorized by specific orders given by Emperor
Hirohito himself, transmitted by the chief of staff of the army. For
example, the Emperor authorized the use of toxic gas on 375 separate
occasions during the
Battle
Battle of Wuhan from August to October 1938.[48]
They were also profusely used during the invasion of Changde. Those
orders were transmitted either by prince Kotohito Kan'in or general
Hajime Sugiyama.[49] The
Imperial Japanese Army
Imperial Japanese Army had used mustard gas
and the US-developed (CWS-1918) blister agent lewisite against Chinese
troops and guerrillas. Experiments involving chemical weapons were
conducted on live prisoners (
Unit 731
Unit 731 and Unit 516).
The Japanese also carried chemical weapons as they swept through
Southeast Asia
Southeast Asia towards Australia. Some of these items were captured
and analyzed by the Allies. Historian Geoff Plunkett has recorded how
Australia covertly imported 1,000,000 chemical weapons from the United
Kingdom from 1942 onwards and stored them in many storage depots
around the country, including three tunnels in the Blue Mountains to
the west of Sydney. They were to be used as a retaliatory measure if
the Japanese first used chemical weapons.[50] Buried chemical weapons
have been recovered at Marrangaroo and Columboola.[51][52]
Nazi Germany[edit]
The Germans eventually used poison gas on survivors from the
Battle
Battle of
Kerch, May 1942.
During the Holocaust, a genocide perpetrated by Nazi Germany, millions
of Jews and other victims were gassed with carbon monoxide and
hydrogen cyanide (including Zyklon B).[53][54] This remains the
deadliest use of poison gas in history.[53] Nevertheless, the Nazis
did not extensively use chemical weapons in combat,[53][54] at least
not against the Western Allies,[55] despite maintaining an active
chemical weapons program in which the Nazis used concentration camp
prisoners as forced labor to secretly manufacture tabun, a nerve gas,
and experimented upon concentration camp victims to test the effects
of the gas.[53]
Otto Ambros
Otto Ambros of
IG Farben
IG Farben was a chief chemical-weapons
expert for the Nazis.[53][56]
The Nazis' decision to avoid the use of chemical weapons on the
battlefield has been variously attributed to a lack of technical
ability in the German chemical weapons program and fears that the
Allies would retaliate with their own chemical weapons.[55] It also
has been speculated to have arisen from the personal experiences of
Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler as a soldier in the Kaiser's army during World
War
War I,
where he was gassed by British troops in 1918.[57] After the
Battle
Battle of
Stalingrad, Joseph Goebbels, Robert Ley, and
Martin Bormann
Martin Bormann urged
Hitler to approve the use of tabun and other chemical weapons to slow
the Soviet advance. At a May 1943 meeting in the Wolf's Lair, however,
Hitler was told by Ambros that
Germany
Germany had 45,000 tons of chemical gas
stockpiled, but that the Allies likely had far more. Hitler responded
by suddenly leaving the room and ordering production of tabun and
sarin to be doubled, but "fearing some rogue officer would use them
and spark Allied retaliation, he ordered that no chemical weapons be
transported to the Russian front."[53] After the Allied invasion of
Italy, the Germans rapidly moved to remove or destroy both German and
Italian chemical-weapon stockpiles, "for the same reason that Hitler
had ordered them pulled from the Russian front—they feared that
local commanders would use them and trigger Allied chemical
retaliation."[53]
Stanley P. Lovell, Deputy Director for Research and Development of the
Office of Strategic Services, reports in his book Of Spies and
Stratagems that the Allies knew the Germans had quantities of Gas Blau
available for use in the defense of the Atlantic Wall. The use of
nerve gas on the
Normandy
Normandy beachhead would have seriously impeded the
Allies and possibly caused the invasion to fail altogether. He
submitted the question "Why was nerve gas not used in Normandy?" to be
asked of
Hermann Göring
Hermann Göring during his interrogation. Göring answered
that the reason was that the
Wehrmacht
Wehrmacht was dependent upon horse-drawn
transport to move supplies to their combat units, and had never been
able to devise a gas mask horses could tolerate; the versions they
developed would not pass enough pure air to allow the horses to pull a
cart. Thus, gas was of no use to the German Army under most
conditions.[58]
The Nazis did use chemical weapons in combat on several occasions
along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic
smoke to force Russian resistance fighters out of caverns below the
city, in violation of the 1925
Geneva
Geneva Protocol.[59] The Nazis also
used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odessa in November 1941,
following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the
Battle
Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea.[59] Victor Israelyan,
a Soviet ambassador, reported that the latter incident was perpetrated
by the Wehrmacht's Chemical Forces and organized by a special detail
of SS troops with the help of a field engineer battalion. Chemical
Forces General Ochsner reported to German command in June 1942 that a
chemical unit had taken part in the battle.[60] After the battle in
mid-May 1942, roughly 3,000
Red Army
Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians not
evacuated by sea were besieged in a series of caves and tunnels in the
nearby Adzhimuskai quarry. After holding out for approximately three
months, "poison gas was released into the tunnels, killing all but a
few score of the Soviet defenders."[61] Thousands of those killed
around Adzhimushk were documented to have been killed by asphyxiation
from gas.[60]
In February 1943, German troops stationed in
Kuban
Kuban received a
telegram: "Russians should be eventually cleared out of the mountain
range with gas."[62] The troops also received two wagons of toxin
antidotes.[62]
Western Allies[edit]
The British stockpiled chemical weapons to use in case of a German invasion. Pictured is a chemical warfare bulk decontamination vehicle.
The Western Allies did not use chemical weapons during the Second
World War. The British planned to use mustard gas and phosgene to help
repel a German invasion in 1940-1941,[63][64] and had there been an
invasion may have also deployed it against German cities.[65] General
Alan Brooke, Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces, in command of British
anti-invasion preparations of the Second World
War
War said that he
"...had every intention of using sprayed mustard gas on the beaches"
in an annotation in his diary.[66] The British manufactured mustard,
chlorine, lewisite, phosgene and
Paris Green
Paris Green and stored them at
airfields and depots for use on the beaches.[65]
The mustard gas stockpile was enlarged in 1942–1943 for possible use
by
RAF Bomber Command
RAF Bomber Command against German cities, and in 1944 for possible
retaliatory use if German forces used chemical weapons against the
D-Day landings.[63]
Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister, issued a memorandum
advocating a chemical strike on German cities using poison gas and
possibly anthrax. Although the idea was rejected, it has provoked
debate.[67] In July 1944, fearing that rocket attacks on
London
London would
get even worse, and saying he would only use chemical weapons if it
were "life or death for us" or would "shorten the war by a year",[68]
Churchill wrote a secret memorandum asking his military chiefs to
"think very seriously over this question of using poison gas." He
stated "it is absurd to consider morality on this topic when everybody
used it in the last war without a word of complaint..."
The Joint Planning Staff, however, advised against the use of gas
because it would inevitably provoke
Germany
Germany to retaliate with gas.
They argued that this would be to the Allies' disadvantage in France
both for military reasons and because it might "seriously impair our
relations with the civilian population when it became generally known
that chemical warfare was first employed by us."[69]
In 1945, the U.S. Army's Chemical Warfare Service standardized
improved chemical warfare rockets intended for the new M9 and M9A1
'Bazooka' launchers, adopting the M26 Gas Rocket, a cyanogen chloride
(CK)-filled warhead for the 2.36-in rocket launcher.[70] CK, a deadly
blood agent, was capable of penetrating the protective filter barriers
in some gas masks,[71] and was seen as an effective agent against
Japanese forces (particularly those hiding in caves or bunkers), whose
gas masks lacked the impregnants that would provide protection against
the chemical reaction of CK.[70][72][73] While stockpiled in US
inventory, the CK rocket was never deployed or issued to combat
personnel.[70]
Accidental release[edit]
On the night of December 2, 1943, German
Ju 88
Ju 88 bombers attacked the
port of
Bari
Bari in Southern Italy, sinking several American ships—among
them the SS John Harvey, which was carrying mustard gas intended
for use in retaliation by the Allies if German forces initiated gas
warfare. The presence of the gas was highly classified, and
authorities ashore had no knowledge of it, which increased the number
of fatalities since physicians, who had no idea that they were dealing
with the effects of mustard gas, prescribed treatment improper for
those suffering from exposure and immersion.
The whole affair was kept secret at the time and for many years after
the war. According to the U.S. military account, "Sixty-nine deaths
were attributed in whole or in part to the mustard gas, most of them
American merchant seamen"[74] out of 628 mustard gas military
casualties.[75]
The large number of civilian casualties among the Italian population
was not recorded. Part of the confusion and controversy derives from
the fact that the German attack was highly destructive and lethal in
itself, also apart from the accidental additional effects of the gas
(the attack was nicknamed "The Little Pearl Harbor"), and attribution
of the causes of death between the gas and other causes is far from
easy.[76][77] Rick Atkinson, in his book The Day of Battle, describes
the intelligence that prompted Allied leaders to deploy mustard gas to
Italy. This included Italian intelligence that
Adolf Hitler
Adolf Hitler had
threatened to use gas against Italy if the state changed sides, and
prisoner of war interrogations suggesting that preparations were being
made to use a "new, egregiously potent gas" if the war turned
decisively against Germany. Atkinson concludes, "No commander in 1943
could be cavalier about a manifest threat by
Germany
Germany to use gas."
Post-war[edit]
After World
War
War II, the Allies recovered German artillery shells
containing the three German nerve agents of the day (tabun, sarin, and
soman), prompting further research into nerve agents by all of the
former Allies.
Although the threat of global thermonuclear war was foremost in the
minds of most during the Cold War, both the Soviet and Western
governments put enormous resources into developing chemical and
biological weapons.
Britain[edit]
Porton Down
Porton Down was first established in 1916 and became the centre for
the development of chemical weapons.
In the late 1940s and early 1950s, British postwar chemical weapons
research was based at the
Porton Down
Porton Down facility. Research was aimed at
providing Britain with the means to arm itself with a modern
nerve-agent-based capability and to develop specific means of defense
against these agents.
Ranajit Ghosh, a chemist at the Plant Protection Laboratories of
Imperial Chemical Industries
Imperial Chemical Industries was investigating a class of
organophosphate compounds (organophosphate esters of substituted
aminoethanethiols),[78] for use as a pesticide. In 1954, ICI put one
of them on the market under the trade name Amiton. It was subsequently
withdrawn, as it was too toxic for safe use.
The toxicity did not go unnoticed, and samples of it were sent to the
research facility at
Porton Down
Porton Down for evaluation. After the evaluation
was complete, several members of this class of compounds were
developed into a new group of much more lethal nerve agents, the V
agents. The best-known of these is probably VX, assigned the UK
Rainbow Code Purple Possum, with the Russian V-Agent coming a close
second (
Amiton
Amiton is largely forgotten as VG).[79]
On the defensive side, there were years of difficult work to develop
the means of prophylaxis, therapy, rapid detection and identification,
decontamination and more effective protection of the body against
nerve agents, capable of exerting effects through the skin, the eyes
and respiratory tract.
Tests were carried out on servicemen to determine the effects of nerve
agents on human subjects, with one recorded death due to a nerve gas
experiment. There have been persistent allegations of unethical human
experimentation at Porton Down, such as those relating to the death of
Leading Aircraftman Ronald Maddison, aged 20, in 1953. Maddison was
taking part in sarin nerve agent toxicity tests.
Sarin
Sarin was dripped
onto his arm and he died shortly afterwards.[80]
In the 1950s the Chemical Defence Experimental Establishment became
involved with the development of CS, a riot control agent, and took an
increasing role in trauma and wound ballistics work. Both these facets
of Porton Down's work had become more important because of the
situation in Northern Ireland.[81]
In the early 1950s, nerve agents such as sarin were produced in small
quantities—about 20 tons were made from 1954 until 1956. CDE
Nancekuke was an important factory for stockpiling chemical weapons.
Small amounts of VX were produced there, mainly for laboratory test
purposes, but also to validate plant designs and optimise chemical
processes for potential mass production. However, full-scale mass
production of VX agent never took place, with the 1956 decision to end
the UK's offensive chemical weapons programme.[82] In the late 1950s,
the chemical weapons production plant at Nancekuke was mothballed, but
was maintained through the 1960s and 1970s in a state whereby
production of chemical weapons could easily re-commence if
required.[82]
United States[edit]
In 1952, the
U.S. Army
U.S. Army patented a process for the "Preparation of
Toxic Ricin", publishing a method of producing this powerful toxin. In
1958 the British government traded their VX technology with the United
States in exchange for information on thermonuclear weapons. By 1961
the U.S. was producing large amounts of VX and performing its own
nerve agent research. This research produced at least three more
agents; the four agents (VE, VG, VM, VX) are collectively known as the
"V-Series" class of nerve agents.
Between 1951 and 1969,
Dugway Proving Ground
Dugway Proving Ground was the site of testing
for various chemical and biological agents, including an open-air
aerodynamic dissemination test in 1968 that accidentally killed, on
neighboring farms, approximately 6,400 sheep by an unspecified nerve
agent.[83]
From 1962 to 1973, the Department of Defense planned 134 tests under
Project 112, a chemical and biological weapons "vulnerability-testing
program." In 2002, the Pentagon admitted for the first time that some
of tests used real chemical and biological weapons, not just harmless
simulants.[84]
Specifically under Project SHAD, 37 secret tests were conducted in
California, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Maryland and Utah. Land tests in
Alaska and Hawaii used artillery shells filled with sarin and VX,
while Navy trials off the coasts of Florida, California and Hawaii
tested the ability of ships and crew to perform under biological and
chemical warfare, without the crew's knowledge. The code name for the
sea tests was Project Shipboard Hazard and Defense—"SHAD" for
short.[84]
In October 2002, the Senate Armed Forces Subcommittee on Personnel
held hearings as the controversial news broke that chemical agents had
been tested on thousands of American military personnel. The hearings
were chaired by Senator Max Cleland, former VA administrator and
Vietnam
Vietnam
War
War veteran.
United States
United States chemical respiratory protection standardization
In December 2001, the
United States
United States Department of Health and Human
Services,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), and National
Personal Protective Technology Laboratory (NPPTL), along with the U.S.
Army Research, Development and Engineering Command (RDECOM), Edgewood
Chemical and Biological Center (ECBC), and the U.S. Department of
Commerce
National Institute for Standards and Technology
National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)
published the first of six technical performance standards and test
procedures designed to evaluate and certify respirators intended for
use by civilian emergency responders to a chemical, biological,
radiological, or nuclear weapon release, detonation, or terrorism
incident.
To date NIOSH/NPPTL has published six new respirator performance
standards based on a tiered approach that relies on traditional
industrial respirator certification policy, next-generation emergency
response respirator performance requirements, and special live
chemical warfare agent testing requirements of the classes of
respirators identified to offer respiratory protection against
chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) agent
inhalation hazards. These CBRN respirators are commonly known as
open-circuit self-contained breathing apparatus (CBRN SCBA),
air-purifying respirator (CBRN APR), air-purifying escape respirator
(CBRN APER), self-contained escape respirator (CBRN SCER) and loose-
or tight-fitting powered air-purifying respirators (CBRN PAPR).
Soviet Union[edit]
There were reports of chemical weapons being used during the Soviet
war in Afghanistan, sometimes against civilians.[85][86]
Due to the secrecy of the Soviet Union's government, very little
information was available about the direction and progress of the
Soviet chemical weapons until relatively recently. After the fall of
the Soviet Union, Russian chemist
Vil Mirzayanov published articles
revealing illegal chemical weapons experimentation in Russia.
In 1993, Mirzayanov was imprisoned and fired from his job at the State
Research Institute of Organic Chemistry and Technology, where he had
worked for 26 years. In March 1994, after a major campaign by U.S.
scientists on his behalf, Mirzayanov was released.[87]
Among the information related by
Vil Mirzayanov was the direction of
Soviet research into the development of even more toxic nerve agents,
which saw most of its success during the mid-1980s. Several highly
toxic agents were developed during this period; the only unclassified
information regarding these agents is that they are known in the open
literature only as "Foliant" agents (named after the program under
which they were developed) and by various code designations, such as
A-230 and A-232.[88]
According to Mirzayanov, the Soviets also developed weapons that were
safer to handle, leading to the development of the binary weapons, in
which precursors for the nerve agents are mixed in a munition to
produce the agent just prior to its use. Because the precursors are
generally significantly less hazardous than the agents themselves,
this technique makes handling and transporting the munitions a great
deal simpler.
Additionally, precursors to the agents are usually much easier to
stabilize than the agents themselves, so this technique also made it
possible to increase the shelf life of the agents a great deal. During
the 1980s and 1990s, binary versions of several Soviet agents were
developed and are designated as "Novichok" agents (after the Russian
word for "newcomer").[89] Together with Lev Fedorov, he told the
secret
Novichok
Novichok story exposed in the newspaper The Moscow News.[90]
Use in conflicts after World
War
War II[edit]
North Yemen[edit]
The
International Red Cross
International Red Cross hospital at Uqd, North Yemen, where the
use of chemical weapons was alleged to have occurred
The first attack of the
North Yemen
North Yemen Civil
War
War took place on June 8,
1963 against Kawma, a village of about 100 inhabitants in northern
Yemen, killing about seven people and damaging the eyes and lungs of
25 others. This incident is considered to have been experimental, and
the bombs were described as "home-made, amateurish and relatively
ineffective". The Egyptian authorities suggested that the reported
incidents were probably caused by napalm, not gas.
There were no reports of gas during 1964, and only a few were reported
in 1965. The reports grew more frequent in late 1966. On December 11,
1966, fifteen gas bombs killed two people and injured thirty-five. On
January 5, 1967, the biggest gas attack came against the village of
Kitaf, causing 270 casualties, including 140 fatalities. The target
may have been Prince Hassan bin Yahya, who had installed his
headquarters nearby. The Egyptian government denied using poison gas,
and alleged that Britain and the US were using the reports as
psychological warfare against Egypt. On February 12, 1967, it said it
would welcome a UN investigation. On March 1, U Thant, the then
Secretary-General of the United Nations, said he was "powerless" to
deal with the matter.
On May 10, 1967 the twin villages of Gahar and Gadafa in Wadi Hirran,
where Prince Mohamed bin Mohsin was in command, were gas bombed,
killing at least seventy-five. The Red Cross was alerted and on June
2, 1967, it issued a statement in
Geneva
Geneva expressing concern. The
Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University of Berne made a
statement, based on a Red Cross report, that the gas was likely to
have been halogenous derivatives—phosgene, mustard gas, lewisite,
chloride or cyanogen bromide.
Rhodesian Bush War[edit]
See also:
Rhodesia
Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction
Evidence points to a top-secret Rhodesian program in the 1970s to use
organophosphate pesticides and heavy metal rodenticides to contaminate
clothing as well as food and beverages. The contaminated items were
covertly introduced into insurgent supply chains. Hundreds of
insurgent deaths were reported, although the actual death toll likely
rose over 1,000.[91]
Vietnamese border raids in Thailand[edit]
There is some evidence suggesting that Vietnamese troops used phosgene
gas against Cambodian resistance forces in
Thailand
Thailand during the
1984-1985 dry-season offensive on the Thai-Cambodian
border.[92][93][94]
Iran–
Iraq
Iraq War[edit]
See also: Iraqi chemical weapons program
Victims of the 1987 chemical attack on Sardasht, West Azerbaijan, Iran
Chemical weapons employed by
Saddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein killed and injured
numerous Iranians and Iraqi Kurds. According to Iraqi documents,
assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in
many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the
Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France.[95]
About 100,000 Iranian soldiers were victims of Iraq's chemical
attacks. Many were hit by mustard gas. The official estimate does not
include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the
children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood,
lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for
Veterans.
Nerve gas
Nerve gas agents killed about 20,000 Iranian soldiers
immediately, according to official reports. Of the 80,000 survivors,
some 5,000 seek medical treatment regularly and about 1,000 are still
hospitalized with severe, chronic conditions.[96][97][98]
Halabja[edit]
Main article:
Halabja
Halabja chemical attack
In March 1988, the Iraqi Kurdish village of
Halabja
Halabja was exposed to
multiple chemical agents dropped from warplanes; these "may have
included mustard gas, the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX and
possibly cyanide."[99] Between 3,200 and 5,000 people were killed, and
between 7,000 and 10,000 were injured.[99] Some reports indicated that
three-quarters of them were women and children.[99] The preponderance
of the evidence indicates that
Iraq
Iraq was responsible for the
attack.[99]
Persian Gulf War[edit]
The
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Defense and Central Intelligence Agency's
longstanding official position is that Iraqi forces under Saddam
Hussein did not use chemical weapons during the Persian Gulf
War
War in
1991. In a memorandum in 1994 to veterans of the war, Defense
Secretary
William J. Perry
William J. Perry and General John M. Shalikashvili, the
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote that "There is no
evidence, classified or unclassified, that indicates that chemical or
biological weapons were used in the Persian Gulf."[100]
However, chemical weapons expert Jonathan B. Tucker, writing in the
Nonproliferation Review in 1997, determined that although "[t]he
absence of severe chemical injuries or fatalities among Coalition
forces makes it clear that no large-scale Iraqi employment of chemical
weapons occurred," an array of "circumstantial evidence from a variety
of sources suggests that
Iraq
Iraq deployed chemical weapons into the
Kuwait
Kuwait Theater of Operations (KTO)—the area including
Kuwait
Kuwait and
Iraq
Iraq south of the 31st Parallel, where the ground war was fought—and
engaged in sporadic chemical warfare against Coalition forces."[100]
In addition to intercepts of Iraqi military communications and
publicly available reporting:
Other sources of evidence for sporadic Iraqi chemical warfare include U.S. intelligence reports on the presence of Iraqi chemical weapons in the KTO; military log entries describing the discovery by U.S. units of chemical munitions in Iraqi bunkers during and after the ground war; incidents in which troops reported acute symptoms of toxic chemical exposure; and credible detections of chemical-warfare agents by Czech, French, and American forces.[100]
Nerve agents
Nerve agents (specifically, tabun, sarin, and cyclosarin) and blister
agents (specifically, sulfur-mustard and lewisite) were detected at
Iraqi sites.[100]
The threat itself of gas warfare had a major effect on Israel, which
was not part of the coalition forces led by the US.
Israel
Israel was
attacked with 39 scud missiles, most of which were knocked down in the
air above their targets by
Patriot missiles
Patriot missiles developed by Raytheon
together with Israel, and supplied by the US. Sirens warned of the
attacks approximately 10 minutes before their expected arrival, and
Israelis donned gas masks and entered sealed "safe" rooms, over a
period 5 weeks. Babies were issued special gas-safe cribs, and
religious men were issued gas masks that allowed them to preserve
their beards.[101][102][103]
In 2014, tapes from Saddam Hussain's archives revealed that Saddam had
given orders to use gas against
Israel
Israel as a last resort if his
military communications with the army were cut off.[104]
In 2015 the
New York Times
New York Times published an article about the declassified
report of operation Avarice in 2005 in which over 400 chemical weapons
including many rockets and missiles from the Iran-
Iraq
Iraq war period were
recovered and subsequently destroyed by the CIA.[105] Many other
stockpiles, estimated by UNSCOM up to 600 metric tons of chemical
weapons, were known to have existed and even admitted by Saddam's
regime, but claimed by them to have been destroyed. These have never
been found but are believed to still exist.[106][107]
Angola[edit]
During the Cuban intervention in Angola,
United Nations
United Nations toxicologists
certified that residue from both VX and sarin nerve agents had been
discovered in plants, water, and soil where Cuban units were
conducting operations against National Union for the Total
Independence of Angola (UNITA) insurgents.[108] In 1985, UNITA made
the first of several claims that their forces were the target of
chemical weapons, specifically organophosphates. The following year
guerrillas reported being bombarded with an unidentified
greenish-yellow agent on three separate occasions. Depending on the
length and intensity of exposure, victims suffered blindness or death.
The toxin was also observed to have killed plant life.[109] Shortly
afterwards, UNITA also sighted strikes carried out with a brown agent
which it claimed resembled mustard gas.[110] As early as 1984 a
research team dispatched by the
University of Ghent
University of Ghent had examined
patients in UNITA field hospitals showing signs of exposure to nerve
agents, although it found no evidence of mustard gas.[111]
The UN first accused Cuba of deploying chemical weapons against
Angolan civilians and partisans in 1988.[108]
Wouter Basson later
disclosed that South African military intelligence had long verified
the use of unidentified chemical weapons on Angolan soil; this was to
provide the impetus for their own biological warfare programme,
Project Coast.[108] During the
Battle
Battle of Cuito Cuanavale, South
African troops then fighting in Angola were issued with gas masks and
ordered to rehearse chemical weapons drills. Although the status of
its own chemical weapons program remained uncertain,
South Africa
South Africa also
deceptively bombarded Cuban and Angolan units with colored smoke in an
attempt to induce hysteria or mass panic.[110] According to Defence
Minister Magnus Malan, this would force the Cubans to share the
inconvenience of having to take preventative measures such as donning
NBC suits, which would cut combat effectiveness in half. The tactic
was effective: beginning in early 1988 Cuban units posted to Angola
were issued with full protective gear in anticipation of a South
African chemical strike.[110]
On October 29, 1988, personnel attached to Angola's 59 Brigade,
accompanied by six Soviet military advisors, reported being struck
with chemical weapons on the banks of the Mianei River.[112] The
attack occurred shortly after one in the afternoon. Four Angolan
soldiers lost consciousness while the others complained of violent
headaches and nausea. That November the Angolan representative to the
UN accused
South Africa
South Africa of employing poison gas near Cuito Cuanavale
for the first time.[112]
Falklands War[edit]
Technically, the reported employment of tear gas by Argentine forces
during the
1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands
1982 invasion of the Falkland Islands constitutes chemical
warfare.[113] However, the tear gas grenades were employed as
nonlethal weapons to avoid British casualties. The barrack buildings
the weapons were used on proved to be deserted in any case. The
British claim that more lethal, but legally justifiable as they are
not considered chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons Convention,
white phosphorus grenades were used.[114]
Syrian Civil War[edit]
Some of the victims of the Ghouta,
Syria
Syria attack, August 21, 2013
Main articles:
Syria and weapons of mass destruction
Syria and weapons of mass destruction and Use of
chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War
See also:
Syria chemical weapons program
Syria chemical weapons program and Destruction of Syria's
chemical weapons
Sarin, mustard agent and chlorine gas have been used during the
conflict. Numerous casualties led to an international reaction,
especially the 2013 Ghouta attacks. A UN fact-finding mission was
requested to investigate alleged chemical weapons attacks. In four
cases the UN inspectors confirmed use of sarin gas.[115] In August
2016, a confidential report by the
United Nations
United Nations and the OPCW
explicitly blamed the Syrian military of
Bashar al-Assad
Bashar al-Assad for dropping
chemical weapons (chlorine bombs) on the towns of Talmenes in April
2014 and Sarmin in March 2015 and
ISIS
ISIS for using sulfur mustard on the
town of Marea in August 2015.[116] In 2016,
Jaysh al-Islam
Jaysh al-Islam rebel group
had used chlorine gas or other agents against Kurdish militia and
civilians in the
Sheikh Maqsood
Sheikh Maqsood neighborhood of Aleppo.[117]
Many countries, including the
United States
United States and the European Union
have accused the Syrian government of conducting several chemical
attacks. Following the
2013 Ghouta attacks
2013 Ghouta attacks and international pressure,
Syria
Syria acceded to the
Chemical Weapons Convention
Chemical Weapons Convention and the destruction
of Syria's chemical weapons began. In 2015 the UN mission disclosed
previously undeclared traces of sarin compounds[disputed – discuss]
in a "military research site".[118] After the April 2017 Khan Shaykhun
chemical attack, the
United States
United States launched its first attack against
Syrian government forces.
Terrorism[edit]
See also: Chemical terrorism
For many terrorist organizations, chemical weapons might be considered
an ideal choice for a mode of attack, if they are available: they are
cheap, relatively accessible, and easy to transport. A skilled chemist
can readily synthesize most chemical agents if the precursors are
available.
In July 1974, a group calling themselves the Aliens of America
successfully firebombed the houses of a judge, two police
commissioners, and one of the commissioner’s cars, burned down two
apartment buildings, and bombed the Pan Am Terminal at Los Angeles
International Airport, killing three people and injuring eight. The
organization, which turned out to be a single resident alien named
Muharem Kurbegovic, claimed to have developed and possessed a supply
of sarin, as well as four unique nerve agents named AA1, AA2, AA3, and
AA4S. Although no agents were found at the time Kurbegovic was
arrested in August 1974, he had reportedly acquired "all but one" of
the ingredients required to produce a nerve agent. A search of his
apartment turned up a variety of materials, including precursors for
phosgene and a drum containing 25 pounds of sodium cyanide.[119]
U.S. Navy Seabees don their M40 Field Protective Mask
The first successful use of chemical agents by terrorists against a
general civilian population was on June 27, 1994, when Aum Shinrikyo,
an apocalyptic group based in
Japan
Japan that believed it necessary to
destroy the planet, released sarin gas in Matsumoto, Japan, killing
eight and harming 200. The following year,
Aum Shinrikyo
Aum Shinrikyo released
sarin into the Tokyo subway system killing 12 and injuring over 5,000.
On December 29, 1999, four days after Russian forces began an assault
of Grozny, Chechen terrorists exploded two chlorine tanks in the town.
Because of the wind conditions, no Russian soldiers were injured.[120]
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the U.S. cities of New
York City and Washington, D.C., the organization
Al-Qaeda
Al-Qaeda responsible
for the attacks announced that they were attempting to acquire
radiological, biological, and chemical weapons. This threat was lent a
great deal of credibility when a large archive of videotapes was
obtained by the cable television network
CNN
CNN in August 2002 showing,
among other things, the killing of three dogs by an apparent nerve
agent.[121]
In an anti-terrorist attack on October 26, 2002, Russian special
forces used a chemical agent (presumably KOLOKOL-1, an aerosolized
fentanyl derivative), as a precursor to an assault on Chechen
terrorists, meant to incapacitate them with minimal harm to the
hostages, ending the Moscow theater hostage crisis. All 42 of the
terrorists and 120 out of 850 hostages were killed during the raid. Of
the hostages who died, all but one or two died from the effects of the
agent.
In early 2007, multiple terrorist bombings had been reported in Iraq
using chlorine gas. These attacks wounded or sickened more than 350
people. Reportedly the bombers were affiliated with
Al-Qaeda
Al-Qaeda in
Iraq,[122] and they have used bombs of various sizes up to chlorine
tanker trucks.[123]
United Nations
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon
condemned the attacks as "clearly intended to cause panic and
instability in the country."[124]
Chemical weapons treaties[edit]
See also:
Destruction of chemical weapons
Destruction of chemical weapons and Chemical Weapons
Convention
The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in
War
War of Asphyxiating,
Poisonous or other Gases, and the Bacteriological Methods of Warfare,
or the
Geneva
Geneva Protocol, is an international treaty which prohibits the
use of chemical and biological weapons in warfare. Signed into
international Law at
Geneva
Geneva on June 17, 1925 and entered into force on
February 8, 1928, this treaty states that chemical and biological
weapons are "justly condemned by the general opinion of the civilised
world."[125]
Chemical Weapons Convention[edit]
Main article: Chemical Weapons Convention
States parties to the
Chemical Weapons Convention
Chemical Weapons Convention in 2015. Light
colored territories are those states parties that have declared
stockpiles of chemical weapons and/or have known production facilities
for chemical weapons.
The most recent arms control agreement in International Law, the Convention of the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction, or the Chemical Weapons Convention, outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons. It is administered by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), an intergovernmental organisation based in The Hague.[126] Technology[edit]
Chemical warfare
Chemical warfare technology timeline
Agents Dissemination Protection Detection
1914
Chlorine
Chloropicrin
Phosgene
Mustard gas
Wind
Wind dispersal
Gas masks, urinated-on gauze
Smell
1918
Lewisite
Chemical shells
Gas mask
Rosin
Rosin oil clothing
smell of geraniums
1920s Projectiles w/ central bursters CC-2 clothing
1930s
G-series nerve agents
Aircraft bombs
Blister agent
Blister agent detectors
Color change paper
1940s
Missile warheads
Spray tanks
Protective ointment (mustard)
Collective protection
Gas mask
Gas mask w/ Whetlerite
1950s
1960s
V-series nerve agents
Aerodynamic
Gas mask
Gas mask w/ water supply
Nerve gas
Nerve gas alarm
1970s
1980s Binary munitions Improved gas masks (protection, fit, comfort) Laser detection
1990s
Novichok
Novichok nerve agents
A
Swedish Army
Swedish Army soldier wearing a chemical agent protective suit
(C-vätskeskydd) and protection mask (skyddsmask 90)
Although crude chemical warfare has been employed in many parts of the
world for thousands of years,[127] "modern" chemical warfare began
during World
War
War I - see Chemical weapons in World
War
War I.
Initially, only well-known commercially available chemicals and their
variants were used. These included chlorine and phosgene gas. The
methods used to disperse these agents during battle were relatively
unrefined and inefficient. Even so, casualties could be heavy, due to
the mainly static troop positions which were characteristic features
of trench warfare.
Germany, the first side to employ chemical warfare on the
battlefield,[128] simply opened canisters of chlorine upwind of the
opposing side and let the prevailing winds do the dissemination. Soon
after, the French modified artillery munitions to contain phosgene –
a much more effective method that became the principal means of
delivery.[129]
Since the development of modern chemical warfare in World
War
War I,
nations have pursued research and development on chemical weapons that
falls into four major categories: new and more deadly agents; more
efficient methods of delivering agents to the target (dissemination);
more reliable means of defense against chemical weapons; and more
sensitive and accurate means of detecting chemical agents.
Chemical warfare
Chemical warfare agents[edit]
See also: List of chemical warfare agents
A chemical used in warfare is called a chemical warfare agent (CWA).
About 70 different chemicals have been used or stockpiled as chemical
warfare agents during the 20th and 21st centuries. These agents may be
in liquid, gas or solid form. Liquid agents that evaporate quickly are
said to be volatile or have a high vapor pressure. Many chemical
agents are made volatile so they can be dispersed over a large region
quickly.[citation needed]
The earliest target of chemical warfare agent research was not
toxicity, but development of agents that can affect a target through
the skin and clothing, rendering protective gas masks useless. In July
1917, the Germans employed mustard gas.
Mustard gas
Mustard gas easily penetrates
leather and fabric to inflict painful burns on the skin.
Chemical warfare
Chemical warfare agents are divided into lethal and incapacitating
categories. A substance is classified as incapacitating if less than
1/100 of the lethal dose causes incapacitation, e.g., through nausea
or visual problems. The distinction between lethal and incapacitating
substances is not fixed, but relies on a statistical average called
the LD50.
Persistency[edit]
Chemical warfare
Chemical warfare agents can be classified according to their
persistency, a measure of the length of time that a chemical agent
remains effective after dissemination. Chemical agents are classified
as persistent or nonpersistent.
Agents classified as nonpersistent lose effectiveness after only a few
minutes or hours or even only a few seconds. Purely gaseous agents
such as chlorine are nonpersistent, as are highly volatile agents such
as sarin. Tactically, nonpersistent agents are very useful against
targets that are to be taken over and controlled very quickly.
Apart from the agent used, the delivery mode is very important. To
achieve a nonpersistent deployment, the agent is dispersed into very
small droplets comparable with the mist produced by an aerosol can. In
this form not only the gaseous part of the agent (around 50%) but also
the fine aerosol can be inhaled or absorbed through pores in the skin.
Modern doctrine requires very high concentrations almost instantly in
order to be effective (one breath should contain a lethal dose of the
agent). To achieve this, the primary weapons used would be rocket
artillery or bombs and large ballistic missiles with cluster warheads.
The contamination in the target area is only low or not existent and
after four hours sarin or similar agents are not detectable anymore.
By contrast, persistent agents tend to remain in the environment for
as long as several weeks, complicating decontamination. Defense
against persistent agents requires shielding for extended periods of
time. Non-volatile liquid agents, such as blister agents and the oily
VX nerve agent, do not easily evaporate into a gas, and therefore
present primarily a contact hazard.
The droplet size used for persistent delivery goes up to 1 mm
increasing the falling speed and therefore about 80% of the deployed
agent reaches the ground, resulting in heavy contamination. Deployment
of persistent agents is intended to constrain enemy operations by
denying access to contaminated areas.
Possible targets include enemy flank positions (averting possible
counterattacks), artillery regiments, commando posts or supply lines.
Because it is not necessary to deliver large quantities of the agent
in a short period of time, a wide variety of weapons systems can be
used.
A special form of persistent agents are thickened agents. These
comprise a common agent mixed with thickeners to provide gelatinous,
sticky agents. Primary targets for this kind of use include airfields,
due to the increased persistency and difficulty of decontaminating
affected areas.
Classes[edit]
Chemical weapons are inert agents that come in four categories:
choking, blister, blood and nerve.[130] The agents are organized into
several categories according to the manner in which they affect the
human body. The names and number of categories varies slightly from
source to source, but in general, types of chemical warfare agents are
as follows:
Classes of chemical weapon agents
Class of agent Agent Names Mode of Action Signs and Symptoms Rate of action Persistency
Nerve
Cyclosarin
Cyclosarin (GF)
Sarin
Sarin (GB)
Soman
Soman (GD)
Tabun (GA)
VX
VR
Some insecticides
Novichok
Novichok agents
Inactivates enzyme acetylcholinesterase, preventing the breakdown of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine in the victim's synapses and causing both muscarinic and nicotinic effects
Miosis
Miosis (pinpoint pupils)
Blurred/dim vision
Headache
Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea
Copious secretions/sweating
Muscle twitching/fasciculations
Dyspnea
Seizures
Loss of consciousness
Vapors: seconds to minutes; Skin: 2 to 18 hours
VX is persistent and a contact hazard; other agents are non-persistent and present mostly inhalation hazards.
Asphyxiant/Blood
Most Arsines
Cyanogen
Cyanogen chloride
Hydrogen cyanide
Arsine: Causes intravascular hemolysis that may lead to renal failure.
Cyanogen
Cyanogen chloride/hydrogen cyanide:
Cyanide
Cyanide directly prevents cells
from using oxygen. The cells then use anaerobic respiration, creating
excess lactic acid and metabolic acidosis.
Possible cherry-red skin Possible cyanosis Confusion Nausea Patients may gasp for air Seizures prior to death Metabolic acidosis
Immediate onset Non-persistent and an inhalation hazard.
Vesicant/Blister
Sulfur mustard
Sulfur mustard (HD, H)
Nitrogen mustard
Nitrogen mustard (HN-1, HN-2, HN-3)
Lewisite
Lewisite (L)
Phosgene oxime
Phosgene oxime (CX)
Agents are acid-forming compounds that damages skin and respiratory system, resulting burns and respiratory problems.
Severe skin, eye and mucosal pain and irritation Skin erythema with large fluid blisters that heal slowly and may become infected Tearing, conjunctivitis, corneal damage Mild respiratory distress to marked airway damage
Mustards: Vapors: 4 to 6 hours, eyes and lungs affected more rapidly; Skin: 2 to 48 hours Lewisite: Immediate
Persistent and a contact hazard.
Choking/Pulmonary
Chlorine Hydrogen chloride Nitrogen oxides Phosgene
Similar mechanism to blister agents in that the compounds are acids or acid-forming, but action is more pronounced in respiratory system, flooding it and resulting in suffocation; survivors often suffer chronic breathing problems.
Airway irritation Eye and skin irritation Dyspnea, cough Sore throat Chest tightness Wheezing Bronchospasm
Immediate to 3 hours Non-persistent and an inhalation hazard.
Lachrymatory agent
Tear gas Pepper spray
Causes severe stinging of the eyes and temporary blindness. Powerful eye irritation Immediate Non-persistent and an inhalation hazard.
Incapacitating
Agent 15
Agent 15 (BZ)
Causes atropine-like inhibition of acetylcholine in subject. Causes peripheral nervous system effects that are the opposite of those seen in nerve agent poisoning.
May appear as mass drug intoxication with erratic behaviors, shared
realistic and distinct hallucinations, disrobing and confusion
Hyperthermia
Ataxia
Ataxia (lack of coordination)
Mydriasis
Mydriasis (dilated pupils)
Dry mouth and skin
Inhaled: 30 minutes to 20 hours; Skin: Up to 36 hours after skin exposure to BZ. Duration is typically 72 to 96 hours.
Extremely persistent in soil and water and on most surfaces; contact hazard.
Cytotoxic proteins
Non-living biological proteins, such as:
Ricin Abrin
Inhibit protein synthesis
Latent period of 4-8 hours, followed by flu-like signs and symptoms Progress within 18-24 hours to:
Inhalation: nausea, cough, dyspnea, pulmonary edema
Ingestion:
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage
Gastrointestinal hemorrhage with emesis and bloody
diarrhea; eventual liver and kidney failure.
4-24 hours; see symptoms. Exposure by inhalation or injection causes more pronounced signs and symptoms than exposure by ingestion Slight; agents degrade quickly in environment
There are other chemicals used militarily that are not scheduled by the Chemical Weapons Convention, and thus are not controlled under the CWC treaties. These include:
Defoliants and herbicides that destroy vegetation, but are not
immediately toxic or poisonous to human beings. Their use is
classified as herbicidal warfare. Some batches of Agent Orange, for
instance, used by the British during the
Malayan Emergency
Malayan Emergency and the
United States
United States during the
Vietnam
Vietnam War, contained dioxins as
manufacturing impurities. Dioxins, rather than
Agent Orange
Agent Orange itself,
have long-term cancer effects and for causing genetic damage leading
to serious birth deformities.
Incendiary or explosive chemicals (such as napalm, extensively used by
the
United States
United States during the Korean
War
War and the
Vietnam
Vietnam War, or
dynamite) because their destructive effects are primarily due to fire
or explosive force, and not direct chemical action. Their use is
classified as conventional warfare.
Viruses, bacteria, or other organisms. Their use is classified as
biological warfare. Toxins produced by living organisms are considered
chemical weapons, although the boundary is blurry. Toxins are covered
by the Biological Weapons Convention.
Designations[edit]
Further information: chemical weapon designation
Most chemical weapons are assigned a one- to three-letter "
NATO
NATO weapon
designation" in addition to, or in place of, a common name. Binary
munitions, in which precursors for chemical warfare agents are
automatically mixed in shell to produce the agent just prior to its
use, are indicated by a "-2" following the agent's designation (for
example, GB-2 and VX-2).
Some examples are given below:
Blood agents: Vesicants:
Cyanogen
Cyanogen chloride: CK
Hydrogen cyanide: AC
Lewisite: L
Sulfur
Sulfur mustard: H, HD, HS, HT
Pulmonary agents: Incapacitating agents:
Phosgene: CG
Quinuclidinyl benzilate: BZ
Lachrymatory agents: Nerve agents:
Pepper spray: OC Tear gas: CN, CS, CR
Sarin: GB VE, VG, VM, VX
Delivery[edit]
The most important factor in the effectiveness of chemical weapons is
the efficiency of its delivery, or dissemination, to a target. The
most common techniques include munitions (such as bombs, projectiles,
warheads) that allow dissemination at a distance and spray tanks which
disseminate from low-flying aircraft. Developments in the techniques
of filling and storage of munitions have also been important.
Although there have been many advances in chemical weapon delivery
since World
War
War I, it is still difficult to achieve effective
dispersion. The dissemination is highly dependent on atmospheric
conditions because many chemical agents act in gaseous form. Thus,
weather observations and forecasting are essential to optimize weapon
delivery and reduce the risk of injuring friendly forces.[citation
needed]
Dispersion[edit]
Dispersion of chlorine in World
War
War I
Dispersion is placing the chemical agent upon or adjacent to a target
immediately before dissemination, so that the material is most
efficiently used. Dispersion is the simplest technique of delivering
an agent to its target. The most common techniques are munitions,
bombs, projectiles, spray tanks and warheads.
World
War
War I saw the earliest implementation of this technique. The
actual first chemical ammunition was the French 26 mm cartouche
suffocante rifle grenade, fired from a flare carbine. It contained 35g
of the tear-producer ethyl bromoacetate, and was used in autumn 1914
– with little effect on the Germans.
The Germans on the other hand tried to increase the effect of
10.5 cm shrapnel shells by adding an irritant – dianisidine
chlorosulfonate. Its use went unnoticed by the British when it was
used against them at Neuve Chapelle in October 1914. Hans Tappen, a
chemist in the Heavy
Artillery
Artillery Department of the
War
War Ministry,
suggested to his brother, the Chief of the Operations Branch at German
General Headquarters, the use of the tear-gases benzyl bromide or
xylyl bromide.
Shells were tested successfully at the Wahn artillery range near
Cologne
Cologne on January 9, 1915, and an order was placed for 15 cm
howitzer shells, designated ‘T-shells’ after Tappen. A shortage of
shells limited the first use against the Russians at
Bolimów
Bolimów on
January 31, 1915; the liquid failed to vaporize in the cold weather,
and again the experiment went unnoticed by the Allies.
The first effective use were when the German forces at the Second
Battle
Battle of Ypres simply opened cylinders of chlorine and allowed the
wind to carry the gas across enemy lines. While simple, this technique
had numerous disadvantages. Moving large numbers of heavy gas
cylinders to the front-line positions from where the gas would be
released was a lengthy and difficult logistical task.
Aerial photograph of a German gas attack on Russian forces circa 1916
Stockpiles of cylinders had to be stored at the front line, posing a
great risk if hit by artillery shells. Gas delivery depended greatly
on wind speed and direction. If the wind was fickle, as at Loos, the
gas could blow back, causing friendly casualties.
Gas clouds gave plenty of warning, allowing the enemy time to protect
themselves, though many soldiers found the sight of a creeping gas
cloud unnerving. This made the gas doubly effective, as, in addition
to damaging the enemy physically, it also had a psychological effect
on the intended victims.
Another disadvantage was that gas clouds had limited penetration,
capable only of affecting the front-line trenches before dissipating.
Although it produced limited results in World
War
War I, this technique
shows how simple chemical weapon dissemination can be.
Shortly after this "open canister" dissemination, French forces
developed a technique for delivery of phosgene in a non-explosive
artillery shell. This technique overcame many of the risks of dealing
with gas in cylinders. First, gas shells were independent of the wind
and increased the effective range of gas, making any target within
reach of guns vulnerable. Second, gas shells could be delivered
without warning, especially the clear, nearly odorless phosgene–
there are numerous accounts of gas shells, landing with a "plop"
rather than exploding, being initially dismissed as dud high explosive
or shrapnel shells, giving the gas time to work before the soldiers
were alerted and took precautions.
The major drawback of artillery delivery was the difficulty of
achieving a killing concentration. Each shell had a small gas payload
and an area would have to be subjected to saturation bombardment to
produce a cloud to match cylinder delivery. A British solution to the
problem was the Livens Projector. This was effectively a large-bore
mortar, dug into the ground that used the gas cylinders themselves as
projectiles - firing a 14 kg cylinder up to 1500 m. This combined
the gas volume of cylinders with the range of artillery.
Over the years, there were some refinements in this technique. In the
1950s and early 1960s, chemical artillery rockets and cluster bombs
contained a multitude of submunitions, so that a large number of small
clouds of the chemical agent would form directly on the target.
Thermal dissemination[edit]
An American-made
MC-1
MC-1 gas bomb
Thermal dissemination is the use of explosives or pyrotechnics to deliver chemical agents. This technique, developed in the 1920s, was a major improvement over earlier dispersal techniques, in that it allowed significant quantities of an agent to be disseminated over a considerable distance. Thermal dissemination remains the principal method of disseminating chemical agents today. Most thermal dissemination devices consist of a bomb or projectile shell that contains a chemical agent and a central "burster" charge; when the burster detonates, the agent is expelled laterally. Thermal dissemination devices, though common, are not particularly efficient. First, a percentage of the agent is lost by incineration in the initial blast and by being forced onto the ground. Second, the sizes of the particles vary greatly because explosive dissemination produces a mixture of liquid droplets of variable and difficult to control sizes. The efficacy of thermal detonation is greatly limited by the flammability of some agents. For flammable aerosols, the cloud is sometimes totally or partially ignited by the disseminating explosion in a phenomenon called flashing. Explosively disseminated VX will ignite roughly one third of the time. Despite a great deal of study, flashing is still not fully understood, and a solution to the problem would be a major technological advance. Despite the limitations of central bursters, most nations use this method in the early stages of chemical weapon development, in part because standard munitions can be adapted to carry the agents.
Soviet chemical weapons canisters from a stockpile in Albania
Aerodynamic dissemination[edit] Aerodynamic dissemination is the non-explosive delivery of a chemical agent from an aircraft, allowing aerodynamic stress to disseminate the agent. This technique is the most recent major development in chemical agent dissemination, originating in the mid-1960s. This technique eliminates many of the limitations of thermal dissemination by eliminating the flashing effect and theoretically allowing precise control of particle size. In actuality, the altitude of dissemination, wind direction and velocity, and the direction and velocity of the aircraft greatly influence particle size. There are other drawbacks as well; ideal deployment requires precise knowledge of aerodynamics and fluid dynamics, and because the agent must usually be dispersed within the boundary layer (less than 200–300 ft above the ground), it puts pilots at risk. Significant research is still being applied toward this technique. For example, by modifying the properties of the liquid, its breakup when subjected to aerodynamic stress can be controlled and an idealized particle distribution achieved, even at supersonic speed. Additionally, advances in fluid dynamics, computer modeling, and weather forecasting allow an ideal direction, speed, and altitude to be calculated, such that warfare agent of a predetermined particle size can predictably and reliably hit a target. Protection against chemical warfare[edit]
Israel
Israel Defense Forces "Yanshuf" battalion soldiers at chemical warfare
defense exercise
Ideal protection begins with nonproliferation treaties such as the Chemical Weapons Convention, and detecting, very early, the signatures of someone building a chemical weapons capability. These include a wide range of intelligence disciplines, such as economic analysis of exports of dual-use chemicals and equipment, human intelligence (HUMINT) such as diplomatic, refugee, and agent reports; photography from satellites, aircraft and drones (IMINT); examination of captured equipment (TECHINT); communications intercepts (COMINT); and detection of chemical manufacturing and chemical agents themselves (MASINT). If all the preventive measures fail and there is a clear and present danger, then there is a need for detection of chemical attacks,[131] collective protection,[132][133][134] and decontamination. Since industrial accidents can cause dangerous chemical releases (e.g., the Bhopal disaster), these activities are things that civilian, as well as military, organizations must be prepared to carry out. In civilian situations in developed countries, these are duties of HAZMAT organizations, which most commonly are part of fire departments. Detection has been referred to above, as a technical MASINT discipline; specific military procedures, which are usually the model for civilian procedures, depend on the equipment, expertise, and personnel available. When chemical agents are detected, an alarm needs to sound, with specific warnings over emergency broadcasts and the like. There may be a warning to expect an attack. If, for example, the captain of a US Navy ship believes there is a serious threat of chemical, biological, or radiological attack, the crew may be ordered to set Circle William, which means closing all openings to outside air, running breathing air through filters, and possibly starting a system that continually washes down the exterior surfaces. Civilian authorities dealing with an attack or a toxic chemical accident will invoke the Incident Command System, or local equivalent, to coordinate defensive measures.[134] Individual protection starts with a gas mask and, depending on the nature of the threat, through various levels of protective clothing up to a complete chemical-resistant suit with a self-contained air supply. The US military defines various levels of MOPP (mission-oriented protective posture) from mask to full chemical resistant suits; Hazmat suits are the civilian equivalent, but go farther to include a fully independent air supply, rather than the filters of a gas mask. Collective protection allows continued functioning of groups of people in buildings or shelters, the latter which may be fixed, mobile, or improvised. With ordinary buildings, this may be as basic as plastic sheeting and tape, although if the protection needs to be continued for any appreciable length of time, there will need to be an air supply, typically an enhanced gas mask.[133][134]
Members of the Ukrainian Army’s 19th Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Battalion practice decontamination drill, at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait
Decontamination[edit]
Decontamination varies with the particular chemical agent used. Some
nonpersistent agents, including most pulmonary agents (chlorine,
phosgene, and so on), blood gases, and nonpersistent nerve gases
(e.g., GB), will dissipate from open areas, although powerful exhaust
fans may be needed to clear out buildings where they have accumulated.
In some cases, it might be necessary to neutralize them chemically, as
with ammonia as a neutralizer for hydrogen cyanide or chlorine. Riot
control agents such as CS will dissipate in an open area, but things
contaminated with CS powder need to be aired out, washed by people
wearing protective gear, or safely discarded.
Mass decontamination is a less common requirement for people than
equipment, since people may be immediately affected and treatment is
the action required. It is a requirement when people have been
contaminated with persistent agents. Treatment and decontamination may
need to be simultaneous, with the medical personnel protecting
themselves so they can function.[135]
There may need to be immediate intervention to prevent death, such as
injection of atropine for nerve agents. Decontamination is especially
important for people contaminated with persistent agents; many of the
fatalities after the explosion of a WWII US ammunition ship carrying
mustard gas, in the harbor of Bari, Italy, after a German bombing on
December 2, 1943, came when rescue workers, not knowing of the
contamination, bundled cold, wet seamen in tight-fitting blankets.
For decontaminating equipment and buildings exposed to persistent
agents, such as blister agents, VX or other agents made persistent by
mixing with a thickener, special equipment and materials might be
needed. Some type of neutralizing agent will be needed; e.g. in the
form of a spraying device with neutralizing agents such as Chlorine,
Fichlor, strong alkaline solutions or enzymes. In other cases, a
specific chemical decontaminant will be required.[134]
Sociopolitical climate[edit]
The study of chemicals and their military uses was widespread in China
and India. The use of toxic materials has historically been viewed
with mixed emotions and moral qualms in the West. The practical and
ethical problems surrounding poison warfare appeared in ancient Greek
myths about Hercules' invention of poison arrows and Odysseus's use of
toxic projectiles. There are many instances of the use of chemical
weapons in battles documented in Greek and Roman historical texts; the
earliest example was the deliberate poisoning of Kirrha's water supply
with hellebore in the First Sacred War, Greece, about 590 BC.[136]
One of the earliest reactions to the use of chemical agents was from
Rome. Struggling to defend themselves from the Roman legions, Germanic
tribes poisoned the wells of their enemies, with Roman jurists having
been recorded as declaring "armis bella non venenis geri", meaning
"war is fought with weapons, not with poisons." Yet the Romans
themselves resorted to poisoning wells of besieged cities in Anatolia
in the 2nd century BCE.[4]
Before 1915 the use of poisonous chemicals in battle was typically the
result of local initiative, and not the result of an active government
chemical weapons program. There are many reports of the isolated use
of chemical agents in individual battles or sieges, but there was no
true tradition of their use outside of incendiaries and smoke. Despite
this tendency, there have been several attempts to initiate
large-scale implementation of poison gas in several wars, but with the
notable exception of World
War
War I, the responsible authorities
generally rejected the proposals for ethical reasons.
For example, in 1854 Lyon Playfair (later 1st Baron Playfair, GCB, PC,
FRS (May 1, 1818 – May 29, 1898), a British chemist, proposed using
a cacodyl cyanide-filled artillery shell against enemy ships during
the Crimean War. The British Ordnance Department rejected the proposal
as "as bad a mode of warfare as poisoning the wells of the enemy."
Efforts to eradicate chemical weapons[edit]
See also: List of chemical arms control agreements
Nation CW Possession Signed CWC Ratified CWC
Albania Known January 14, 1993[137] May 11, 1994[137]
Burma
Burma (Myanmar)
Possible
January 14, 1993[138]
July 8, 2015[139]
China Probable January 13, 1993 April 4, 1997
Egypt Probable No No
India Known January 14, 1993 September 3, 1996
Iran Known January 13, 1993 November 3, 1997
Israel Probable January 13, 1993[138] No
Japan Probable January 13, 1993 September 15, 1995
Libya Known No January 6, 2004 (acceded)
North Korea Known No No
Pakistan Probable January 13, 1993 October 28, 1997
Russia Known January 13, 1993 November 5, 1997
Serbia and Montenegro Probable No April 20, 2000 (acceded)
Sudan Possible No May 24, 1999 (acceded)
Syria Known No September 14, 2013 (acceded)
Taiwan Possible n/a n/a
United States Known January 13, 1993 April 25, 1997
Vietnam Probable January 13, 1993 September 30, 1998
August 27, 1874: The Brussels Declaration Concerning the Laws and
Customs of
War
War is signed, specifically forbidding the "employment of
poison or poisoned weapons", although the treaty was not adopted by
any nation whatsoever and it never went into effect.
September 4, 1900: The First Hague Convention, which includes a
declaration banning the "use of projectiles the object of which is the
diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases," enters into force.
January 26, 1910: The Second Hague Convention enters into force,
prohibiting the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare.
February 6, 1922: After World
War
War I, the Washington Arms Conference
Treaty prohibited the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases.
It was signed by the United States, Britain, Japan, France, and Italy,
but
France
France objected to other provisions in the treaty and it never
went into effect.
February 8, 1928: The
Geneva Protocol
Geneva Protocol enters into force, prohibiting
the use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all
analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods
of warfare".
Chemical weapon
Chemical weapon proliferation[edit]
Main article:
Chemical weapon
Chemical weapon proliferation
Despite numerous efforts to reduce or eliminate them, some nations
continue to research and/or stockpile chemical warfare agents. To the
right is a summary of the nations that have either declared weapon
stockpiles or are suspected of secretly stockpiling or possessing CW
research programs. Notable examples include
United States
United States and Russia.
In 1997, future US Vice President
Dick Cheney
Dick Cheney opposed the signing
ratification of a treaty banning the use chemical weapons, a recently
unearthed letter shows. In a letter dated April 8, 1997, then
Halliburton-CEO Cheney told Sen. Jesse Helms, the chairman of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee, that it would be a mistake for
America to join the Convention. "Those nations most likely to comply
with the
Chemical Weapons Convention
Chemical Weapons Convention are not likely to ever constitute
a military threat to the United States. The governments we should be
concerned about are likely to cheat on the CWC, even if they do
participate," reads the letter,[140] published by the Federation of
American Scientists.
The CWC was ratified by the Senate that same month. Since then,
Albania, Libya, Russia, the United States, and
India
India have declared
over 71,000 metric tons of chemical weapon stockpiles, and destroyed
about a third of them. Under the terms of the agreement, the United
States and
Russia
Russia agreed to eliminate the rest of their supplies of
chemical weapons by 2012. Not having met its goal, the U.S. government
estimates remaining stocks will be destroyed by 2017.[citation needed]
Chemical weapons destruction[edit]
India[edit]
In June 1997,
India
India declared that it had a stockpile of 1044 tons of
sulphur mustard in its possession. India's declaration of its
stockpile came after its entry into the Chemical Weapons Convention,
that created the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons,
and on January 14, 1993
India
India became one of the original signatories
to the Chemical Weapons Convention. By 2005, from among six nations
that had declared their possession of chemical weapons,
India
India was the
only country to meet its deadline for chemical weapons destruction and
for inspection of its facilities by the Organisation for the
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.[141][142] By 2006,
India
India had
destroyed more than 75 percent of its chemical weapons and material
stockpile and was granted an extension to complete a 100 percent
destruction of its stocks by April 2009. On May 14, 2009 India
informed the
United Nations
United Nations that it has completely destroyed its
stockpile of chemical weapons.[143]
Iraq[edit]
See also: Iraqi chemical warfare
The Director-General of the Organisation for the Prohibition of
Chemical Weapons, Ambassador Rogelio Pfirter, welcomed Iraq's decision
to join the
OPCW
OPCW as a significant step to strengthening global and
regional efforts to prevent the spread and use of chemical weapons.
The
OPCW
OPCW announced "The government of
Iraq
Iraq has deposited its
instrument of accession to the
Chemical Weapons Convention
Chemical Weapons Convention with the
Secretary General of the
United Nations
United Nations and within 30 days, on 12
February 2009, will become the 186th State Party to the Convention".
Iraq
Iraq has also declared stockpiles of chemical weapons, and because of
their recent accession is the only State Party exempted from the
destruction time-line.[144]
Japan[edit]
During the Second Sino-Japanese
War
War (1937–1945)
Japan
Japan stored
chemical weapons on the territory of mainland China. The weapon stock
mostly containing mustard gas-lewisite mixture.[145] The weapons are
classified as abandoned chemical weapons under the Chemical Weapons
Convention and from September 2010
Japan
Japan has started their destruction
in Nanjing using mobile destruction facilities in order to do so.[146]
Russia[edit]
Russia
Russia signed into the
Chemical Weapons Convention
Chemical Weapons Convention on January 13, 1993
and ratified it on November 5, 1995. Declaring an arsenal of 39,967
tons of chemical weapons in 1997, by far the largest arsenal,
consisting of blister agents: Lewisite,
Sulfur
Sulfur mustard,
Lewisite-mustard mix, and nerve agents: Sarin, Soman, and VX. Russia
met its treaty obligations by destroying 1 percent of its chemical
agents by the 2002 deadline set out by the Chemical Weapons
Convention, but requested an extension on the deadlines of 2004 and
2007 due to technical, financial, and environmental challenges of
chemical disposal. Since,
Russia
Russia has received help from other
countries such as Canada which donated C$100,000, plus a further
C$100,000 already donated, to the Russian Chemical Weapons Destruction
Program. This money will be used to complete work at Shchuch'ye and
support the construction of a chemical weapons destruction facility at
Kizner (Russia), where the destruction of nearly 5,700 tons of nerve
agent, stored in approximately 2 million artillery shells and
munitions, will be undertaken. Canadian funds are also being used for
the operation of a Green Cross Public Outreach Office, to keep the
civilian population informed on the progress made in chemical weapons
destruction activities.[147]
As of July 2011,
Russia
Russia has destroyed 48 percent (18,241 tons) of its
stockpile at destruction facilities located in Gorny (Saratov Oblast)
and Kambarka (Udmurt Republic) - where operations have finished - and
Schuch'ye (Kurgan Oblast), Maradykovsky (Kirov Oblast), Leonidovka
(Penza Oblast) whilst installations are under construction in Pochep
(Bryansk Oblast) and Kizner (Udmurt Republic).[148] As August 2013, 76
percent (30,500 tons) were destroyed,[149] and
Russia
Russia leaves the
Cooperative Threat Reduction
Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) Program, which partially funded
chemical weapons destruction.[150]
United States[edit]
See also:
United States
United States and weapons of mass destruction
§ Chemical weapons
On November 25, 1969, President
Richard Nixon
Richard Nixon unilaterally renounced
the use of chemical weapons and renounced all methods of biological
warfare. He issued a decree halting the production and transport of
all chemical weapons which remains in effect. From May 1964 to the
early 1970s the USA participated in Operation CHASE, a United States
Department of Defense program that aimed to dispose of chemical
weapons by sinking ships laden with the weapons in the deep Atlantic.
After the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,
Operation Chase was scrapped and safer disposal methods for chemical
weapons were researched, with the U.S. destroying several thousand
tons of mustard gas by incineration at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, and
nearly 4,200 tons of nerve agent by chemical neutralisation at Tooele
Army Depot.[151]
The U.S. ratified the
Geneva Protocol
Geneva Protocol which banned the use of chemical
and biological weapons on January 22, 1975. In 1989 and 1990, the U.S.
and the
Soviet Union
Soviet Union entered an agreement to both end their chemical
weapons programs, including binary weapons. In April 1997, the United
States ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, this banned the
possession of most types of chemical weapons. It also banned the
development of chemical weapons, and required the destruction of
existing stockpiles, precursor chemicals, production facilities, and
their weapon delivery systems.
The U.S. began stockpile reductions in the 1980s with the removal of
outdated munitions and destroying its entire stock of 3-Quinuclidinyl
benzilate (BZ or Agent 15) at the beginning of 1988. In June 1990 the
Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System
Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System began destruction of
chemical agents stored on the
Johnston Atoll
Johnston Atoll in the Pacific, seven
years before the Chemical Weapons Treaty came into effect. In 1986
President Ronald Reagan made an agreement with the Chancellor, Helmut
Kohl to remove the U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons from Germany. In
1990, as part of Operation Steel Box, two ships were loaded with over
100,000 shells containing
Sarin
Sarin and VX were taken from the U.S. Army
weapons storage depots such as Miesau and then-classified FSTS
(Forward Storage / Transportation Sites) and transported from
Bremerhaven,
Germany
Germany to
Johnston Atoll
Johnston Atoll in the Pacific, a 46-day
nonstop journey.[152]
In May 1991, President
George H. W. Bush
George H. W. Bush committed the United States
to destroying all of its chemical weapons and renounced the right to
chemical weapon retaliation. In 1993, the
United States
United States signed the
Chemical Weapons Treaty, which required the destruction of all
chemical weapon agents, dispersal systems, and production facilities
by April 2012. The U.S. prohibition on the transport of chemical
weapons has meant that destruction facilities had to be constructed at
each of the U.S.'s nine storage facilities. The U.S. met the first
three of the four deadlines set out in the treaty, destroying 45% of
its stockpile of chemical weapons by 2007. Due to the destruction of
chemical weapons, under the
United States
United States policy of Proportional
Response, an attack upon the
United States
United States or its Allies would trigger
a force-equivalent counter-attack. Since the
United States
United States only
maintains nuclear Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is the stated policy
that the
United States
United States will regard all WMD attacks (Biological,
chemical, or nuclear) as a nuclear attack and will respond to such an
attack with a nuclear strike.[153]
As of 2012, stockpiles have been eliminated at 7 of the 9 chemical
weapons depots and 89.75% of the 1997 stockpile has been destroyed by
the treaty deadline of April 2012.[154] Destruction will not begin at
the two remaining depots until after the treaty deadline and will use
neutralization, instead of incineration.
See also[edit]
Weapons of mass destruction portal
1990 Chemical Weapons Accord
Agent Orange
Ali Hassan al-Majid
Area denial weapon
Biological warfare
Chemical Weapons Convention
Chemical weapon
Chemical weapon designation
Chemical weapons and the United Kingdom
Gas chamber
Lethal Unitary Chemical Agents and Munitions
List of chemical warfare agents
List of highly toxic gases
Ronald Maddison
Psychochemical weapon
Saint Julien Memorial
Sardasht (A town attacked with chemical weapons during the Iran–Iraq
War.)
Stink bomb
United States
United States Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense
Weapon
Weapon of mass destruction
Zyklon B
Notes[edit]
^ Rule 74. The use of chemical weapons is prohibited., Customary IHL
Database,
International Committee of the Red Cross
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)/Cambridge
University Press.
^ "Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production,
Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction
(CWC): Annexes and Original Signatories". Bureau of Arms Control,
Verification and Compliance. Retrieved January 19, 2012.
^ Disarmament lessons from the
Chemical Weapons Convention
Chemical Weapons Convention Archived
June 6, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.
^ a b c d Mayor 2003
^ Michael Bothe; Natalino Ronzitti; Allan Rosas, eds. (1998), The New
Chemical Weapons Convention
Chemical Weapons Convention - Implementation and Prospects, Martinus
Nijhoff Publishers, p. 17, ISBN 90-411-1099-2
^ a b Richardt, Andre (2013), CBRN Protection: Managing the Threat of
Chemical, Biological, Radioactive and Nuclear Weapons, Germany:
Wiley-VCH Verlag & Co., p. 4,
ISBN 978-3-527-32413-2
^ Science Daily, dated January 19, 2009 Sciencedaily.com
^ “Death Underground: Gas Warfare at Dura-Europos,” Current
Archaeology, November 26, 2009 (online feature)
http://www.archaeology.co.uk/cwa/world-news/death-underground-gas-warfare-at-dura-europos.htm
(accessed October 3, 2014)
^ Samir S. Patel, “Early Chemical Warfare – Dura-Europos,
Syria,” Archaeology, Vol. 63, No. 1, January/February 2010,
http://www.archaeology.org/1001/topten/syria.html (accessed October 3,
2014)
^ Stephanie Pappas, “Buried Soldiers May Be Victims of Ancient
Chemical Weapon,” LiveScience, March 8, 2011,
http://www.livescience.com/13113-ancient-chemical-warfare-romans-persians.html
(accessed October 3, 2014).
^ Sayers W. The Use of Quicklime in Medieval Naval Warfare // The
Mariner's Mirror. - Volume 92 (2006). - Issue 3. - PP. 262-269.
^ David Hume, History of England, Volume II.
^
Charles C. Mann (2011), 1493: Uncovering the New World Columbus
Created, Random House Digital, p. 9,
ISBN 978-0-307-59672-7
^ Eric Croddy (2002). Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Comprehensive
Survey for the Concerned Citizen. Springer. p. 131.
^ Smart, Jeffery K. "CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE RESEARCH AND
DEVELOPMENT DURING THE CIVIL WAR" (PDF).
United States
United States Army. US Army
Soldier and Biological Chemical Command. Retrieved November 7,
2014.
^ Verwey, Wil D. (1977).
Riot control
Riot control agents and herbicides in
war : their humanitarian, toxicological, ecological, military,
palemological, and legal aspects. Lieden: Sigthoff. pp. 33–34,
196. ISBN 9789028603363. Retrieved April 13, 2017.
^ "The First World War" (a Channel 4 documentary based on the book by
Hew Strachan)
^ Faith, Thomas (2014). Behind the gas mask : the U.S. chemical
warfare service in war and peace. Champaign, IL: University of
Illinois Press. p. 9. ISBN 978-0252080265. Retrieved April
14, 2017.
^ "April 22, 1915: Germans introduce poison gas". This Day In History.
Retrieved April 14, 2017.
^ a b Gross, Daniel A. (Spring 2015). "Chemical Warfare: From the
European Battlefield to the American Laboratory". Distillations. 1
(1): 16–23. Retrieved March 20, 2018.
^ D. Hank Ellison (August 24, 2007). Handbook of Chemical and
Biological Warfare Agents, Second Edition. CRC Press.
pp. 567–570. ISBN 0-8493-1434-8.
^ Max Boot (August 16, 2007).
War
War Made New: Weapons, Warriors, and the
Making of the Modern World. Gotham. pp. 245–250.
ISBN 1-5924-0315-8.
^ Colditz, Graham A. (2007). Encyclopedia of cancer and society. Los
Angeles: Sage Publications. pp. 1013–1015.
ISBN 978-1412949897. Retrieved April 14, 2017.
^ Albright, Richard D. (2012). Cleanup of chemical and explosive
munitions : locating, identifying contaminants, and planning for
environmental remediation of land and sea military ranges and ordnance
dumpsites (2nd ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier/William Andrew.
pp. 137–240. ISBN 978-1-4377-3477-5. Retrieved April 13,
2017.
^ Ashooh, Emma (December 7, 2015). "A Hidden History: American
University's Role in World
War
War I". American Word. Retrieved April 13,
2017.
^ a b Curry, Andrew (November 10, 2016). "Weapons of
War
War Litter the
Ocean Floor". Hakai Magazine. Retrieved April 14, 2017.
^ Tyner, James A. (2010). Military legacies : a world made by
war. New York (N.Y.): Routledge. pp. 113–115.
ISBN 978-0415995948. Retrieved April 14, 2017.
^ Andrulewicz, E. (2007). "Chemical weapons dumped in the Baltic Sea".
In Gonenc, I.E.; Koutitonsky, V.G.; Rashleigh, B.; Ambrose, R.B.;
Wolflin, J.P. Assessment of the Fate and Effects of Toxic Agents on
Water Resources (
NATO
NATO Security through Science Series ed.). Dordrecht:
Springer.
^ HELCOM (1994). Report on Chemical Munitions Dumped in the Baltic Sea
Report to the 16th Meeting of Helsinki Commission 8 - 11 March 1994
from the Ad Hoc Working Group on Dumped Chemical
Munition
Munition (HELCOM
CHEMU) January 1994 (PDF). Danish Environmental Protection
Agency.
^ Edvard Radzinsky (2011). Stalin. Knopf Doubleday. p. 173.
^ Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panné, Jean-Louis
Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski, Stéphane Courtois, The Black
Book
Book of
Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, Harvard University Press, 1999,
hardcover, 858 pages, ISBN 0-674-07608-7
^ a b Ronald Bruce St John, Libya: Continuity and Change (Routledge,
2015), p. 16.
^ Saskia van Genugten,
Libya
Libya in Western Foreign Policies, 1911–2011
(Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), p. 31.
^ Andrew Jackson Waskey & Spencer C. Tucker, "
Senussi
Senussi and Sultan
of Darfur Rebellions" in Encyclopedia of Insurgency and
Counterinsurgency: A New Era of Modern Warfare (ed. Spencer C. Tucker:
ABC-CLIO, 2013), p. 498.
^ a b c d e f "Chemical Weapons" in Historical Dictionary of Ethiopia,
2d ed. (eds. David H. Shinn & Thomas P. Ofcansky: Scarecrow Press,
2013).
^ a b c Rainer Baudendistel, Between Bombs and Good Intentions: The
International Committee of the Red Cross
International Committee of the Red Cross and the Italo-Ethiopian War,
1935-1936, pp. 264-67.
^ William R. Cullen, Is
Arsenic
Arsenic an Aphrodisiac?: The Sociochemistry of
an Element (Royal Society of Chemistry, 2008), p. 241.
^ a b c d Jeffrey Legro, Cooperation Under Fire: Anglo-German
Restraint During World
War
War II (Cornell University Press, 2005).
^ Walter Laqueur, The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass
Destruction (Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 57.
^ Edward M. Spiers, Chemical and Biological Weapons: A Study of
Proliferation (Macmillan: 1994).
^ "Introduction" in Italian Colonialism (eds. Ruth Ben-Ghiat & Mia
Fuller: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p. 6.
^ Corum, James S., The Roots of Blitzkrieg, University Press of
Kansas, USA, 1992, pp.106-107.
^ Schmaltz, Florian (2005), Kampfstoff-Forschung im
Nationalsozialismus Zur Kooperation von Kaiser-Wilhelm-Instituten,
Militär und Industrie, Wallstein Verlag
^ Schmaltz, Florian (2006), "Neurosciences and Research on Chemical
Weapons of Mass Destruction in Nazi Germany", Journal of the History
of the Neurosciences, 15 (3): 186–209,
doi:10.1080/09647040600658229, PMID 16887760
^ "Laws of War: Declaration on the Use of Projectiles the Object of
Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases; July 29,
1899". Avalon.law.yale.edu. Retrieved January 18, 2014.
^ "Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of
War
War on Land and
its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of
War
War on Land.
The Hague, 18 October 1907". International Committee of the Red Cross.
Retrieved January 18, 2014.
^ Yuki Tanaka,
Poison
Poison Gas, the Story
Japan
Japan Would Like to Forget,
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, October 1988, p. 16-17
^ Y. Yoshimi and S. Matsuno, Dokugasusen Kankei Shiryô II, Kaisetsu,
Jugonen Sensô Gokuhi Shiryoshu, 1997, p.27-29
^ Yoshimi and Matsuno, idem, Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the Making of
Modern Japan, 2001, p.360-364
^ Army History Unit, Chemical Warfare in Australia (2nd Edn) 2013
(Army Military History Series)
^ Geoff Plunkett, Chemical Warfare in Australia
^ Geoff Plunkett, Death By Mustard Gas
^ a b c d e f g Patrick Coffey, American Arsenal: A Century of Weapon
Technology and Strategy (Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 152-54.
^ a b James J. Wirtz, "Weapons of Mass Destruction" in Contemporary
Security Studies (4th ed.), ed. Alan Collins, Contemporary Security
Studies (Oxford University Press, 2016), p. 302.
^ a b Callum Borchers, Sean Spicer takes his questionable claims to a
new level in Hitler-Assad comparison, Washington Post (April 11,
2017).
^
Germany
Germany and the Second World War, Vol. 5, Issue 2 (Clarendon Press,
2003), p. 764.
^ "Century of biological and chemical weapons". BBC News. September
25, 2001.
^ Stanley P. Lovell, Of Spies & Strategems (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963), p. 78.
^ a b Chris Bellamy, Absolute War: Soviet
Russia
Russia in the Second World
War
War (Knopf, 2008).
^ a b Israelyan, Victor. On the Battlefields of the Cold War: A Soviet
Ambassador's Confession. p. 339.
^ Merridale, Catherine, Ivan's War, Faber & Faber: pp. 148-150.
^ a b Гречко, p. 468.
^ a b Bellamy, Christopher (June 4, 1996). "Sixty secret mustard gas
sites uncovered". The Independent.
^ "Chemical Warfare -Suffolk". Anti-Invasion defences Suffolk World
War
War II. Retrieved June 18, 2008.
^ a b Pears, Brian. "Chapter 5 Invasion". Rowlands Gill and the
North-East 1939 - 1945. Archived from the original on August 6,
2006.
^ Alanbrooke, 2001. Entry July 22, 1940.
^ BBC2 Newsnight, 1/5/81; The Guardian, 7,9,13,20,30/5, 2/6/81; The
Times, 11/5/81, 20/5/81, 15/6/81; The Listener, 25/6, 2/7, 17/8/81;
Daily Telegraph, 18,21,25,29/5, 2,11/6/81; Encounter magazine,
Vol.58-9 no.2; New Society, Vol.60; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
Vol.4 no.4 and 'Churchill's
Anthrax
Anthrax Bombs - a debate', Vol.4 no.12,
November 1987.
^ Paxman, Jeremy; Harris, Robert (August 6, 2002) [1982]. "The War
That Never Was". A higher form of killing: the secret history of
chemical and biological warfare. p. 128.
ISBN 978-0-8129-6653-4. OCLC 268949025. I want the matter
studied in cold blood by sensible people
^ "Paxman and Harris", p132-35.
^ a b c Smart, Jeffrey (1997), "2", History of Chemical and Biological
Warfare: An American Perspective, Aberdeen, MD, USA: Army Chemical and
Biological Defense Command, p. 32 .
^ https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ershdb/EmergencyResponseCard_29750039.html
^ "Characteristics and Employment of Ground Chemical Munitions", Field
Manual 3-5, Washington, DC:
War
War Department, 1946,
pp. 108–19 .
^ Skates, John R (2000), The Invasion of Japan: Alternative to the
Bomb, University of South Carolina Press, pp. 93–96,
ISBN 978-1-57003-354-4
^ US Naval Historical Center, Naval Armed Guard Service: Tragedy at
Bari, Italy on 2 December 1943, archived from the original on January
12, 2008
^ Niderost, Eric, World
War
War II: German Raid on
Bari
Bari (Full text),
HistoryNet.com
^ Infield, Glenn B. Infield, Disaster at Bari
^ Reminick, Gerald, Nightmare in Bari: The World
War
War II Liberty Ship
Poison
Poison Gas Disaster and Coverup
^ Ghosh, R.; Newman, J.E. (Jan 29, 1955). "A new group of
organophosphorus pesticides". Chemistry and Industry: 118.
^ G B Carter. Porton Down: a brief history.
^ G B Carter (2000). Chemical and Biological Defence at Porton Down
1916–2000. The Stationery Office.
^ Robert Bud; Philip Gummett (2002). Cold War, Hot Science: Applied
Research in Britain's Defence Laboratories, 1945-1990. Science
museum.
^ a b "Nancekuke Remediation Project". Ministry of Defence (Archived
by The National Archives). Archived from the original on December 8,
2010. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
^ Staff, Committee on Veterans' Affairs, US Senate (December 8, 1994),
Is Military Research Hazardous to Veterans' Health? Lessons spanning
half a century, 103d Congress, 2d Session - Committee Print - S. Prt.
103-97 CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
^ a b Philip Huang (October 17, 2002), "Sickening strategy", Oregon
Daily Emerald [dead link]
^ The Story of Genocide in Afghanistan Hassan Kakar
^ Report from Afghanistan Claude Malhuret
^
Yevgenia Albats
Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick. The State Within a
State: The KGB and Its Hold on
Russia
Russia - Past, Present, and Future,
1994. ISBN 0-374-18104-7 (see pages 325–328)
^ Fedorov, Lev (July 27, 1994), Chemical Weapons in Russia: History,
Ecology, Politics, Center of Ecological Policy of Russia
^ Birstein, Vadim J. (2004), The Perversion Of Knowledge: The True
Story of Soviet Science, Westview Press, ISBN 0-8133-4280-5
^ Federov, Lev; Mirzayanov, Vil (1992), "A Poisoned Policy", Moscow
News (weekly No. 39)
^ Cross, Glenn (2017), Dirty War:
Rhodesia
Rhodesia and Chemical Biological
Warfare, 1975-1980, Helion & Company,
ISBN 978-1-911512-12-7
^ "KPNLF says Vietnamese Using Suffocant Gas," Bangkok World, January
4, 1985, p. 1.
^ "Viets Accused of Using Gas Against Rebels," Associated Press,
February 19, 1985.
^ "Thais Report a Clash with Vietnamese Troops," Associated Press,
February 20, 1985.
^ Lafayette, Lev (July 26, 2002), "Who armed Saddam?", World History
Archives
^ Fassihi, Farnaz (October 27, 2002), "In Iran, grim reminders of
Saddam's arsenal", New Jersey Star Ledger
^ Paul Hughes (January 21, 2003), "It's like a knife stabbing into
me", The Star (South Africa)
^ Sciolino, Elaine (February 13, 2003), "
Iraq
Iraq Chemical Arms Condemned,
but West Once Looked the Other Way", New York Times, archived from the
original on May 27, 2013
^ a b c d On this day: 1988: Thousands die in
Halabja
Halabja gas attack, BBC
News (March 16, 1988).
^ a b c d Jonathan B. Tucker, Evidence
Iraq
Iraq Used Chemical Weapons
During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, The Nonproliferation Review
(Spring-Summer 1997), pp. 114-22.
^ Israeli Responses to the Threat of Chemical Warfare, Prof. Gerald
Steinberg, Published in Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 20., No. 1 Fall
1993, pp.85-101 (Faculty of Chemistry, Bar Ilan University website)
^ The Gulf War, Netanel Lorch (published on the
Israel
Israel ministry of
foreign affairs website)
^ The distribution of special gas masks for bearded men in footnote 19
about Prof. Yosseph Shilhav's research. Sticking Together page 139,
Yakov Kop and Robert E. Litan (Google Books)
^ Saddam gave orders to fire chemical weapons at Tel-Aviv if he was
toppled in first gulf war January 25, 2014 (Times of
Israel
Israel website)
^ Chivers, C.J.; Schmitt, Eric (February 15, 2015). "CIA is said to
have bought and destroyed Iraqi chemical weapons". New York Times.
Retrieved May 21, 2016.
^ The chief U.N. weapons inspector said on Monday that
Iraq
Iraq could not
account for stocks of anthrax and a deadly nerve gas that it said it
had destroyed January 27, 2003, Cnn
^ Deadly arsenals Joseph Cirincione et al. Page 343 quoting UNSCOM
reports. (Google Books)
^ a b c Hawk, Kathleen Dupes; Villella, Ron; Varona, Adolfo Leyva de
(July 30, 2014). Florida and the Mariel Boatlift of 1980: The First
Twenty Days. University of Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0817318376.
Retrieved October 11, 2014.
^ "Chemical weapons being used in Angola?". Park City Daily News.
Bowling Green, Kentucky. August 22, 1986. Retrieved July 28,
2015.
^ a b c Helen E. Purkitt, Stephen F. Burgess: The Rollback of South
Africa's Chemical and Biological Warfare Program, Air University,
Counterproliferation Center, Maxwell Airforce Base, Alabama, 2001
^ "Cubans using poison gas in Angola". The Lewiston Journal.
Lewiston–Auburn, Maine. August 26, 1988. Retrieved July 28,
2015.
^ a b 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.
ISBN 978-1-4314-0185-7.
^ The Argentine Fight for The Falklands, Lieutenant-Commander
Sanchez-Sabarots
^ Falkland Islanders at war, Bound, Graham, Pen and Sword Books
Limited, ISBN 1-84415-429-7.
^ "CDC Facts About Sarin". www.bt.cdc.gov. Retrieved October 7,
2015.
^
Syria
Syria Used
Chlorine
Chlorine in Bombs Against Civilians, Report Says, New
York Times, Rick Gladstone, August 24, 2016 retrieved August 25, 2016.
^ "Kurdish Officials: Rebels May Have Used Chemicals in Aleppo". Voice
of America. April 8, 2016.
^ Louisa Loveluck (May 9, 2015). "UN inspectors find undeclared
sarin-linked chemicals at Syrian military site". London: The
Telegraph. Retrieved May 9, 2015.
^ "T Is for Terror: A mad bomber who stalked Los Angeles in the '70s
could be the poster boy for the kind of terrorist the FBI fears
today", Newsweek Web Exclusive, July 9, 2003
^ Ксения Мяло. Россия и последние войны
XX века: к истории падения
сверхдержавы. Глава 5: Чеченский узел.
М.: Вече, 2002
^ Nic Robertson (August 19, 2002), "Disturbing scenes of death show
capability with chemical gas", CNN, archived from the original on
April 7, 2013
^ Multi-National Force Iraq, Combined Press Information Center (April
20, 2007),
Chlorine
Chlorine Tanks Destroyed, Terrorists Killed in Raids, Press
Release A070420a, archived from the original on August 7, 2009
^ Multi-National Force Iraq, Combined Press Information Center (April
6, 2007), Suicide Vehicle Detonates outside Police Checkpoint, Press
Release 20070406-34, archived from the original on September 12,
2009
^ Ban, Ki-Moon (March 19, 2007), "Secretary-General Condemns Chlorine
Attack in Iraq",
United Nations
United Nations Radio
^ "Text of the Biological and
Toxin Weapons Convention". Brad.ac.uk.
Retrieved September 5, 2013.
^ "UNTC". Treaties.un.org. Retrieved September 16, 2011.
^ Syed, Tanya (January 19, 2009), Ancient Persians 'gassed Romans',
BBC, retrieved February 21, 2009
^ Irwin, Will (April 22, 1915), "The Use of
Poison
Poison Gas", New York
Tribune
^ Johnson, Jeffrey Allan (1990), The Kaiser's Chemists: Science and
Modernization in Imperial Germany, University of North Carolina
Press
^ Gray, Colin. (2007). Another
Bloody Century: Future Warfare. Page
269. Phoenix. ISBN 0-304-36734-6.
^ Griffin Davis (May 24, 2006), "CBRNE - Chemical Detection
Equipment", EMedicine, retrieved October 22, 2007
^ US Department of Defense (June 2, 2003), Multiservice Tactics,
Techniques, and Procedure for NBC Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical
(NBC) Protection (FM 3-11.4 / MCWP 3-37.2 / NTTP 3-11.27 / AFTTP(I)
3-2.46) (PDF), GlobalSecurity.org, FM 3-11.4, retrieved October 22,
2007
^ a b
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (September 12, 2002),
Protecting Building Environments from Airborne Chemical, Biologic, or
Radiologic Attacks, retrieved October 22, 2007
^ a b c d US Department of Defense (September 29, 2000), Multiservice
Tactics, Techniques, and Procedure for NBC Defense of Theater Fixed
Sites, Ports, and Airfields (FM 3-11.34/MCRP 3-37.5/NWP
3-11.23/AFTTP(I) 3-2.33) (PDF), GlobalSecurity.org, retrieved October
22, 2007
^ Ciottone, Gregory R; Arnold, Jeffrey L (January 4, 2007), "CBRNE -
Chemical Warfare Agents", EMedicine, retrieved October 22, 2007
^ Adrienne Mayor, "Greek Fire,
Poison
Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs:
Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World"
Overlook-Duckworth, 2003, rev ed with new Introduction 2008
^ a b "STATUS OF PARTICIPATION IN THE CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION AS
AT 14 OCTOBER 2013". Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons. OPCW. 14 October 2013.
^ a b "SIGNATORY STATES". Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons. OPCW. 2 September 2013.
^ "Myanmar Joins Chemical Weapons Convention". OPCW. 9 July
2015.
^ In Surprise Testimony Cheney Renews Opposition to CWC (PDF), United
States Senate, April 8, 1997, archived from the original (PDF) on
December 17, 2008, retrieved January 4, 2009.
^ "
India
India declares its stock of chemical weapons". Retrieved February
26, 2016.
^ "
India
India to destroy chemical weapons stockpile by 2009".
DominicanToday.com. Archived from the original on September 7, 2013.
Retrieved September 16, 2011.
^ "
India
India destroys its chemical weapons stockpile". Indo-Asian News
Service. May 14, 2009.
^ "
Iraq
Iraq Joins the Chemical Weapons Convention". Opcw.org. Retrieved
September 16, 2011.
^ "Abandoned Chemical Weapons (ACW) in China". Nti.org. Archived from
the original on August 29, 2011. Retrieved September 16, 2011.
^ "Ceremony Marks Start of Destruction of Chemical Weapons Abandoned
by
Japan
Japan in China". Opcw.org. Retrieved September 16, 2011.
^ "Canada Contributes to Russia's Chemical Weapons Destruction
Programme". Opcw.org. Retrieved September 16, 2011.
^ "Research Library: Country Profiles:
China
China Chemical". NTI. Archived
from the original on June 5, 2011. Retrieved September 16, 2011.
^ "
Russia
Russia destroys over 76 percent of its chemical weapons
stockpile".
^ Guarino, Douglas P. "New U.S.-Russian Security Deal Greatly Scales
Back Scope, Experts Say Global Security Newswire". NTI. Retrieved
September 5, 2013.
^ "Rocky Mountain Arsenal Region 8 US EPA". Epa.gov. Retrieved
September 16, 2011.
^ The Oceans and Environmental Security: Shared U.S. and Russian
Perspectives.
^ "Not with Impunity: Assessing US Policy for Retaliating to a
Chemical or Biological Attack". Airpower.maxwell.af.mil. Retrieved
September 16, 2011.
^ Army Agency Completes Mission to Destroy Chemical Weapons, USCMA,
January 21, 2012
References[edit]
CBWInfo.com (2001). A Brief History of Chemical and Biological
Weapons: Ancient Times to the 19th Century. Retrieved November 24,
2004.
Chomsky, Noam (March 4, 2001). Prospects for Peace in the Middle East,
page 2. Lecture.
Cordette, Jessica, MPH(c) (2003). Chemical Weapons of Mass
Destruction. Retrieved November 29, 2004.
Croddy, Eric (2001), Chemical and Biological Warfare, Copernicus,
ISBN 0-387-95076-1
Smart, Jeffery K., M.A. (1997). History of Biological and Chemical
Warfare. Retrieved November 24, 2004.
United States
United States Senate, 103d Congress, 2d Session. (May 25, 1994). The
Riegle Report. Retrieved November 6, 2004.
Gerard J Fitzgerald. American Journal of Public Health. Washington:
Apr 2008. Vol. 98, Iss. 4; p. 611
Гречко, А.А. (1976). Годы Войны. Военное
Издательство Министерства Оборонны
СССР.Москва.
Further reading[edit]
Leo P. Brophy and George J. B. Fisher; The Chemical Warfare Service:
Organizing for
War
War Office of the Chief of Military History, 1959; L.
P. Brophy, W. D. Miles and C. C. Cochrane, The Chemical Warfare
Service: From Laboratory to Field (1959); and B. E. Kleber and D.
Birdsell, The Chemical Warfare Service in Combat (1966). official US
history;
Glenn Cross, Dirty War:
Rhodesia
Rhodesia and Chemical Biological Warfare,
1975–1980, Helion & Company, 2017
Gordon M. Burck and Charles C. Flowerree; International Handbook on
Chemical Weapons Proliferation 1991
L. F. Haber. The Poisonous Cloud: Chemical Warfare in the First World
War
War Oxford University Press: 1986
James W. Hammond Jr;
Poison
Poison Gas: The Myths Versus Reality Greenwood
Press, 1999
Jiri Janata, Role of Analytical Chemistry in Defense Strategies
Against Chemical and Biological Attack, Annual Review of Analytical
Chemistry, 2009
Ishmael Jones, The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional
Intelligence Culture, Encounter Books, New York 2008, revised 2010,
ISBN 978-1-59403-382-7. WMD espionage.
Benoit Morel and Kyle Olson; Shadows and Substance: The Chemical
Weapons Convention Westview Press, 1993
Adrienne Mayor, "Greek Fire,
Poison
Poison Arrows & Scorpion Bombs:
Biological and Chemical Warfare in the Ancient World"
Overlook-Duckworth, 2003, rev ed with new Introduction 2008
Geoff Plunkett, Chemical Warfare in Australia: Australia's Involvement
In Chemical Warfare 1914 - Today, (2nd Edition), 2013.. Leech Cup
Books. A volume in the Army Military History Series published in
association with the Army History Unit.
Jonathan B. Tucker. Chemical Warfare from World
War
War I to Al-Qaeda
(2006)
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Chemical warfare.
Official website of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical
Weapons (OPCW)
Rule 74. The use of chemical weapons is prohibited. — section on
chemical weapons from Customary IHL Database, an "updated version of
the Study on customary international humanitarian law conducted by the
International Committee of the Red Cross
International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and originally
published by Cambridge University Press."
Chemical Warfare information page, from the Disaster Information
Management Research Center of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services including links to relevant sources in the U.S. National
Library of Medicine
v t e
Agents used in chemical warfare incapacitation riot control
Blood
Cyanogen
Cyanogen
Cyanogen bromide
Cyanogen chloride
Cyanogen chloride (CK)
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydrogen cyanide (AC)
Arsine
Vinyl arsine
Blister
Ethyldichloroarsine
Ethyldichloroarsine (ED)
Methyldichloroarsine
Methyldichloroarsine (MD)
Phenyldichloroarsine
Phenyldichloroarsine (PD)
Lewisite
Lewisite (L)
Sulfur mustard
Sulfur mustard (HD H HT HL HQ)
Nitrogen mustard
HN1 HN2 HN3
Nerve
G-agents
Tabun (GA)
Sarin
Sarin (GB)
Soman
Soman (GD)
Cyclosarin
Cyclosarin (GF)
GV
V-agents
EA-3148 VE VG VM VP VR VX
Novichok
Novichok agents
A-234
Carbamates
EA-3990 EA-4056 T-1123
Neurotoxins
Saxitoxin
Saxitoxin (TZ)
Botulinum toxin
Botulinum toxin (BTX)
Tetanospasmin
Tetanospasmin (TeNT)
Ricin
Nettle
Phosgene oxime
Phosgene oxime (CX)
Pulmonary/Choking agent
Chlorine
Phosgene
Phosgene (CG)
Perfluoroisobutene
Chloropicrin
Chloropicrin (PS)
Diphosgene
Diphosgene (DP)
Disulfur decafluoride
Acrolein
Ethyl bromoacetate
Vomiting agent
Adamsite Chloropicrin Diphenylchlorarsine Diphenylcyanoarsine Diphenylamincyanoarsine
Incapacitating
Agent 15
Agent 15 (BZ)
Dimethylheptylpyran
Dimethylheptylpyran (DMHP)
EA-3167
Kolokol-1
LSD-25
PAVA spray
Sleeping gas
Riot control
Xylyl bromide
Pepper spray
Pepper spray (OC)
Mace (spray)
CN
CS
CR
List of chemical warfare agents