Weapons of Mass Destruction 1

Weapons of Mass Destruction

[Name of the writer]

[Name of the institution]

 Weapons of Mass Destruction 2

Weapons of Mass Destruction

Introduction

War has been a driving factor in human existence since the

dawn of time; it has always been with us. War has influenced

science as well, it has forced the development of weapons, from

the first bone clubs which let man rise to the top of the food

chain, to the complex and highly destructive weapons of today.

This century has seen the most development in the technology of

warfare since the combination of sulfur, charcoal and saltpeter

resulted in gunpowder. For the first time in history weapons of

mass destruction have been developed and used in a limited

fashion. Limited only due to the initial crudeness of the weapon

and lack of effective delivery systems. This is now changing, as

more and more nations develop them, it is now only a matter of

time before they are used in a total warfare situation.

Weapons of mass destruction have three categories; the

oldest being biological weapons; followed by chemical weapons,

which were first used in the beginning of the century; and the

newest being nuclear weapons. More and more of the worlds

nations have either already developed or are capable of

developing weapons of mass destruction, and with the fall of the

Soviet Union the threat of theft of these weapons has increased

exponentially. One factor that has always hampered the use of

weapons of mass destruction is the lack of availability of

 Weapons of Mass Destruction 3

effective delivery systems for them, in recent years such

systems have dramatically improved in range, accuracy, and

efficiency. The future will not be limited to the current

weapons of mass destruction, as more are added the threat of

their widespread use increases as well. Weapons of mass

destruction are generally known to be any weapon whose

destructive capabilities are far greater than conventional

explosives or firearms. Since their power is vastly superior

than conventional weapons, and their method of achieving their

power often different than conventional weapons, the manner in

which they are delivered to the target area must also be

different than conventional weapons.1

The greatest amount of Weapons of Mass Destruction is

acquired by Israel and USA. USA is the only country that has

used nuclear weapon against enemy. Iraq was allegedly holding

WMD. In compliance with the then policy, some weapons were

transferred to Iraq by US during Iraq-Iran war.

WMD and Terrorism

The possible use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by

terrorists has been a subject of concern for decades and has

seemed more pressing since March 1995, when a Japanese cult

known as Aum Shinrikyo spread the nerve gas sarin in the Tokyo

1
Dunston, Ashlee 2003
 Weapons of Mass Destruction 4

subway system. Yet, until October 2001, terrorist groups around

the globe refrained from using WMD. Experts agree that the

production of chemical and biological weapons, however crude, is

clearly within the reach of many terrorist groups. Why, then,

have they refrained from using them? The only plausible

explanation is that the use of these weapons has been considered

taboo. For many terrorist groups, presumably, the proscription

has not been based on moral convictions but on the pragmatic

assessment that crossing the line of using universally

prohibited weapons would result in a devastating response.

This taboo was broken on September 11,2001, a day that

marked a turning point in the history of terrorism. The number

of fatalities from these attacks was about 20 times that of the

worst previous act of terrorism. Beyond the tally of casualties,

the attacks constituted a direct challenge to the world's

mightiest nation. Terrorism made a quantum leap from being

simply a nuisance to being a major threat to world order. The

implications of the September 11 attacks are even more enormous.

The breaking of the taboo may bring about an era in which

terrorism of monstrous proportions will dominate the world

scene. A first indication of the new threat has come from the

anthrax-laced letters that circulated following the September 11

attacks. On the other hand, the shock of these attacks may

result in policies that will effectively deter international

 Weapons of Mass Destruction 5

terrorism in the future.2 At this critical juncture, it is

important to examine the history of attempts to deter

international terrorism so as to draw lessons for the future.

The discussion that follows is founded on relevant Israeli and

US experience.

Is it advantageous or not?

The use of these weapons offers many advantages to the

terrorists who use them. Many of these advantages are unique, or

in other words exhibit qualities which conventional weapons

lack. The other advantage is the severity of chemical weapon's

effects. These advantages include the limited capability of

anti-terrorist groups of detecting such weapons, the low cost

and low technology required to develop chemical weapons, their

extremely frightening image and the overall efficiency of such

weapons.

One of the difficulties which has long plagued chemical

warfare defense also lends difficulty to counter terrorist

capabilities. This is the lack of effective detectors. Very few

chemical warfare (CW) agents can be reliably detected when in

use. And these substances are virtually impossible to detect

while being stored in a closed container. This lack of available

2
Mauroni 2000
 Weapons of Mass Destruction 6

detection technology makes CW agents ideal to transport and

conceal due to their clandestine nature.

Chemical weapons have long been considered "the poor man's

atomic bomb" 3due to their relative low cost and ease of

manufacture. This is supported by a group of experts who said

that "for a large-scale operation against a civilian population,

casualties might cost $2,000 per square kilometer with

conventional weapons, $800 with nuclear weapons, $600 with

nerve-gas weapons and $1 with biological weapons".4 The argument

that chemical weapons are too difficult for most terrorists to

manufacture was discredited when a CIA report "concluded that

'clandestine production of [chemical and biological weapons] for

multiple casualty attacks raises no greater technical obstacles

than does the clandestine production of chemical narcotics or

heroin". These factors make chemical weapons attainable, not

only to well funded terrorist groups, but also to any

disgruntled postal employee or other lunatic.

One of the aspects which make chemical weapons such an

appropriate weapon for a terrorist is the name terrifying nature

of chemical weapons. Ever since the first use of chemical

weapons they have been criticized and ridiculed by civilians and

soldiers alike. They've been considered unconventional,

3
Dunston, 2003
4
Dunston, Ashlee 2003
 Weapons of Mass Destruction 7

uncivilized, and even gruesome. These adjectives have also been

employed often when describing terrorists. In general terrorists

thrive off of the shock factor of their activities and chemical

warfare exhibits a high degree of shock factor. Therefore, the

use of chemical weapons may "enhance" many terrorist groups'

images.

The final advantage offered by chemical weapons is their

enormous ability to inflict casualties. These weapons are

extremely cost effective and 40 times more weight effective than

conventional explosive weapons.5 The overall efficiency of CW

agent combined with the entire previously mentioned advantages

make a frighteningly inexpensive, undetectable, and efficient

weapon.

What are the disadvantages?

As with all methods of terrorism there are disadvantages to

the use of chemical weapons. Some of these disadvantages will be

encountered by terrorists regardless of their methods, and some

are unique to chemical weapons. Two of the major disadvantages

of chemical weapons are due to their terrifying and deadly

nature, this may have two affects. The first affect may be an

increased effort in retaliation from anti-terrorist forces, the

second disadvantage is that chemical weapons may hurt the image

5
Mauroni 2000
 Weapons of Mass Destruction 8

of some terrorist groups if not used within the terrorist's

beliefs.

Following the assessment of whether or not to use chemical

weapons, the terrorist must now obtain the necessary chemical

agents. After acquiring the agents the terrorists would have to

decide how they can effectively dispense the agent at as little

risk to themselves as possible.

Regardless of the nature of any terrorist action some type

of retaliation can be expected from the victimized group. The

severity of that group's reaction depends on several factors.

The first factor to consider is who the group is, for instance

any terrorist activity in the United States is responded to with

remarkable force and speed, as was seen with the quick response

to bombing of the World Trade Center. The same can be assumed of

any attack in any major country. Also the method of the attack

will contribute to a victim's response. In general, the more

horrible an attack is the retaliation is likely to be or seem to

be more severe. However, in reality, the overall impact of this

retaliation on the terrorist group is probably going to be about

the same. Take the World Trade Center bombing for example, a few

radicals filled a van with several thousand pounds of explosives

and detonated it in a parking garage below a large building.

This killed a few people and injured a few hundred or so. Had
 Weapons of Mass Destruction 9

those terrorists decided to somehow distributed 100 grams of

sarin the ventilation system of the building the only real

difference in the operation would be a change in the method of

the attack. There would probably be about the same number of

casualties, and the offending persons would be in the same place

they are now, prison.

Not only must a terrorist group consider the political

factors associated with the employment of chemical weapons, but

there are also a few minor technical problems to overcome. The

most obvious of these technical difficulties is the method of

obtaining the necessary chemical agents. This, however, is not

as difficult as it may seem. One way to get chemical weapons is

to manufacture them. As discussed earlier, small groups or

individuals frequently manufacture a variety of narcotic

substances secretly. These people easily overcome difficulties

similar to those encountered in the manufacture of chemical

weapons. So, the answer to the question, of whether or not the

development of chemical weapons is within a terrorist's ability,

is yes.

Another way for terrorist groups to get chemical weapons

would be to purchase them. They can either be purchased from an

illegal source, such as from a former Soviet state or from a

sympathetic third world country or deadly industrial chemicals

 Weapons of Mass Destruction 10

can be legally purchased and employed in a chemical attack.

Since the break down of the U.S.S.R. the black market for

military goods has increased significantly. The Soviet Union had

and possibly still has a large stockpile of chemical weapons.

The media and public have overlooked the serious threat of

chemical weapons being sold; this is due largely to the

overpowering fear of the sale of nuclear material or devices.

Even a NATO official said he was "more concerned about chemical

weapons"6 falling into terrorist hands. There is definitely a

threat of this type of sale, but if this isn't the route, there

are always terrorist groups which have connections with nations

sympathetic to their cause who may have better access to such

weapons.

Illegal purchase isn't the only way terrorists could

acquire a chemical agent with dangerous properties. Many

industrial chemicals are closely related to chemical weapons; in

fact several industrial chemicals were even employed as chemical

weapons during World War I. Chlorine and phosgene were both used

extensively by the German, British, and French during the war.

Although these substances are far less lethal than the nerve

agents, they are quite common and have "many legitimate

industrial applications".7 Even more frightening is that an

6
Hays 1998
7
Hays, 1998
 Weapons of Mass Destruction 11

entire class of industrial chemicals is of a highly toxic

nature. These are the organophosphates, in fact this is also the

class of chemical to which sarin (GB) and VX belong. These

chemicals are commonly used as insecticides and include

parathion, an insecticide notorious for the threat it poses to

those who use it. The lethal doses for the industrial chemicals

of this class are in general ten to fifty times higher than

those of the military agents, however they are still very

dangerous with lethal doses ranging from 1.05 to 7.0 mcg/kg

(Mullen, 253-254), which translates to .000698 kg for a 220

pound person. As one may realize that many of these industrial

agents are well suited for use as a weapon, and that their

legitimate uses make it particularly difficult to regulate

sales. So, in general chemical compounds suitable for use as a

weapon are abundant and easily available, regardless of the

method used to acquire them.

Once a terrorist group has decided to use chemical weapons

and has obtained them the final obstacle is to effectively use

them without causing harm to themselves. This is merely an

engineering feat, which would pose little trouble to most of the

terrorist groups at their current technology level. A government

study even reported that "the level of technological

sophistication required [for effective use of chemical agents] .

 Weapons of Mass Destruction 12

. . may be lower than was the case for some of the

sophisticated bombs that have been used against civilian

aircraft".8 In this age of increasing education and booming

technology, it is much easier to find the necessary technical

and mechanical assistance for any project, legal or otherwise.

Deterring State Sponsorship

Now that the world has progressed so far that mass

destruction is within reach of a far greater percentage of the

population, the likeliness of an incident involving weapons of

mass destruction, particularly chemical weapons, is much

greater. The future holds many developments in store for the

civilized world, when it comes to terrorists and chemical

weapons the threat is real and deadly. Many things are taking

place which will contribute to the spread of this plague. The

first two concern chemical weapons alone, these are the

development of binary weapons and the further proliferation of

chemical weapons to nations sympathetic to terrorists. The next

group concerns the nature of terrorism. This includes the simple

increase of terrorist activity, the e crackdown by anti-

terrorist forces on traditional methods, and the decrease in the

reluctance of a terrorist group to use chemical weapons due to

the successful incident in Tokyo last month.

8
Mauroni 2000
 Weapons of Mass Destruction 13

Recent events have made chemical weapons even more

desirable as a terrorist weapon. The first is the development of

the binary weapon. This is a chemical weapon in which the agent

is stored as two precursor chemicals which only need to be

combined to form the final lethal product. This reduces the risk

that a terrorist must face in the storage and transport of their

weapons, it also reduces the threat of accidental exposure upon

dispersal of the agent. If the chemical device is engineered

correctly, with some sort of time delay, the terrorist could be

long gone even before the lethal agent is made.

Another factor which will contribute to the terrorist use

of chemical weapons is the spread of chemical weapons capability

to third world countries which may have connections with

terrorists. "Iran, Iraq, Libya, N. Korea and Syria a ll listed

by the State Department as supporters of terrorism are believed

to posses some capability for chemical and biological warfare".

9
And can be considered possible sources of chemical weapons for

terrorists. Although the Chemical Weapons Conference has reduced

the proliferation of chemical weapons and, in fact, made it

illegal to develop and stockpile chemical weapons, the amount of

chemical agent necessary for a terrorist operation would be

extremely difficult to detect and can even be justified by

claiming it as research material.

9
Grosscup, Beau 1998
 Weapons of Mass Destruction 14

After considering the chemical weapons themselves, one

needs to realize that terrorists haven't been inactive in recent

years. Quite the contrary is true, the world has seen an

increase in terrorist incidents by 400% from the 1970 s to the

1980s. With this increase in terrorism the diversity of

terrorist attacks are likely to increase. Within this increase

in diversity chemical weapons are more likely to find their way

into more incidents, and in general find a wider acceptance as a

viable technique available to terrorist groups.

Along with the increase in terrorism there has been an

significant increase in anti-terrorism activity and

capabilities. As police and government authorities world wide

become better prepared to handle terrorist activities, and more

anti-terrorist technology is developed, the traditional methods

terrorists are accustomed to using become less likely to

succeed. With most of the anti-terrorist developments focusing

on preventing hijackings and bombings, the difficulty

encountered by terrorists attempting to use these techniques has

increased. With the increase in complications the chances of

success are reduced enough to force some terrorists to consider

alternate methods. Among the alternates are chemical weapons

with all of the advantages they offer.

 Weapons of Mass Destruction 15

Lastly, and most important of all, there has been a breech

in the invisible barrier which has kept terrorists from using

chemical weapons in the past. The CIA has warned that if this

barrier were breached by "one successful incident in volving

such [lethal] agents [it] would significantly lower the

threshold of restraint on their application by other terrorists"

(Anderson). This barrier was composed of fear and uncertainty.

The terrorists were afraid of the consequences of such a weap on

and the danger to themselves, and they were uncertain of the

success of such an attack. Now, after the sarin attack in Japan

in March, it is obvious how effective a small amount of chemical

agent is at tying down a subway system, injuring thousands of

people, and enraging people all over the world. This essentially

opened the door to a whole new form of terrorism. The only thing

now keeping terrorists from using chemical weapons is their lack

of knowledge, and once they realize that the production of these

weapons is well within the scope of their operations, there will

be very little left to stop them.

Causes of Failure

Now, with the threats becoming more and more real every

day, one needs to consider what could be done to counter this

great danger. To start with, counter terrorist organizations

must continue with their information gathering and observations

 Weapons of Mass Destruction 16

of terrorist organizations. The first specific step is that

precursor chemicals or potential chemical weapons must be better

regulated. Then response capabilities must be increased and

improved to deal with chemical attacks, this should include an

improvement in chemical detection capabilities. And finally, the

public must be better informed on the subject of chemical

attacks, in specific "What to do in an emergency."

Restricting chemicals used to make CW (chemical warfare)

agents or used as CW agents, may be the least effective method

of preventing terrorists from using chemical weapons. This

merely increases the costs for a group to obtain their weapons.

It does, however, reduce the chances of “casual” terrorist using

chemical weapons. The casual terrorist may not be willing to go

through the difficulties of obtaining chemical weapons due to

time considerations or a loss in motivation. Another way

restrictions would help reduce CW is through the methods

outlined in the Chemical Weapons Conference. This prevents the

development or sale of chemical weapons by any of the signatory

nations, and thus reduces the number of sources from which

terrorists can acquire their weapons.

An improvement in preparedness for chemical attacks and the

organization of a special team of experts for response to

chemical attacks would be more successful than simply a

 Weapons of Mass Destruction 17

restriction on chemicals. Many emergency agencies (like police,

fire departments, and hospitals) aren't adequately supplied and

trained to deal with chemical attacks, especially on a large

scale. Just a slight increase in instruction on how to identify

the signs of a chemical attack and deal with those affected may

make quite a difference.

Even more important would be the development of a

government response team specifically trained to deal with large

chemical attacks could improve the United States response

capability drastically. This team would be composed of experts

in the field of chemical weapons, the effects of those weapons

and decontamination people and equipment. The number of capable

people in this field is quite large but consists of mainly

military personnel. What needs to be established is quick method

of deployment of these people and their equipment. Along with

this skilled response team there needs to be increased detection

capabilities. Most desirable would be a device which could be

integrated into current airport x-ray and detection equipment.

The increase in a counter terrorist group's capability of

detecting chemical weapons has the obvious advantage of

preventing an attack before it happens. This should clearly be a

priority of government officials.

 Weapons of Mass Destruction 18

Increased public knowledge is probably the best defense or

response to the new chemical weapon threat. The ideal case would

be a public knowledge campaign to teach people what the threats

are and how to identify the signs of a chemical weapon attack.

It is, of course, impractical to expect such a "Just say no to

chemical weapons" campaign to be implicated or even be listened

to at this stage. But as soon as the people of the United States

realize the threat it might become necessary. For the time

being, education can be on the managerial level. Large

corporations, schools, and buildings alike may designate a group

of people to become educated in what to do in the event of such

an emergency. This group could in turn instruct the masses of

people in an emergency. Likely targets of chemical attacks could

also instruct their personnel and post signs regarding the

response to such an emergency. For instance, if subway workers

in the March incident, had been able to identify that chemical

attack more quickly, their lives as well as the lives of others

may have been saved. This increase in awareness would most

likely contribute greatly to a reduction of chemical weapon

casualties.
 Weapons of Mass Destruction 19

Bibliography

1. Dunston, Ashlee. New Yorker's Guide to Terrorism Preparedness

and Response: Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear.

New York: American Council on Science and Health, 2003.

2. Grosscup, Beau. Newest Explosions of Terrorism: Latest Sites

of Terrorism. Far Hills, NJ: New Horizon Press, 1998

3. Hays, Peter L. Countering the Proliferation and Use of

Weapons of Mass Destruction. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1998

4. Mauroni, Albert. America's Struggle with Chemical-Biological

Warfare. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2000