School paper: WMDs - Chemical, Biological, and Nuclear

Humans often see it fit to describe groups of tools by their uses rather than their component parts. For example, boots, poles, bindings, goggles and skis are often described as ‘ski equipment’; gaskets, engine blocks, and oil filters could all be described as ‘automobile parts’, and microphones, sound control boards, and reel-to-reel recorders are all ‘music recording equipment’. Unsurprisingly, humans use similar methods of classification to describe various weapons systems. Infantry soldiers train to fight using ‘longarms’, ‘sidearms’, ‘melee weapons’, ‘improvised weapons’ and ‘hand-to-hand’ methods- together ‘weapons’. Furthermore, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons are often called ‘weapons of mass destruction’; however, the classification of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons under the umbrella term of ‘weapons of mass destruction’ remains more of a strategic classification than an actual technical classification, as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons possess greatly varying properties.

Mere use of chemical, biological, or nuclear elements does not guarantee that a weaponry system will be classified as a weapon of mass destruction. To classify of a weapons system as a weapon of mass destruction requires the combination of a potent destructive force, such as a nuclear explosion, with a delivery system which will deliver that force to a large area or amount of people. For example, airplanes, missiles, and briefcase bombs can all deliver the force of a nuclear explosion to a city and hence can be called ‘weapons of mass destruction’; however, depleted uranium munitions, while mildly radioactive, are not classified as weapons of mass destruction, although they are both highly lethal when used in battle and possibly carcinogenic. Furthermore, chemicals such as mercury, while highly toxic, are not generally classified as weapons of mass destruction because they have not been combined with a delivery system capable of spreading them to large areas. Technically speaking, the underlying destructive technologies for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons differ; however, the effects and delivery systems used to project force with all three types of technology are usually theoretically quite similar, generally bombs or rockets. Furthermore, there seems to be an implicit requirement for direct consequences of the use of a device in order for it to be classified as a weapon of mass destruction- for example, a potent computer virus or Trojan virus capable of disrupting air traffic or airline avionics system could cause hundreds of thousands of passenger and bystander deaths, as well as huge economic losses in a single day, yet computer viruses are not generally classified as weapons of mass destruction, nor are gasoline-burning automobiles, carbon dioxide emissions from which are likely to be responsible for massive damages as well as loss of lives from intensified storms and flooding.

Containment and control issues of weapons of mass destruction are also a key issue. Naturally, a key property of a weapon of mass destruction is its potent fatality and potentially irresistible nature- however, containment and control of such weapons also poses a problem, as naturally, a golem turning on its creator is not the desired effect. Looking at differing types of weaponry, we can see differing characteristics: nuclear weapons are fairly inert unless activated, although they may emit radiation which can be harmful in larger doses. Chemical weapons, if properly stored, also remain inert, although they may leak- still, with proper containment procedures, chemicals may be adequately controlled. However, biological agents are by nature, alive and always active, and hence containment of such agents remains a key priority for those who seek to develop biological weapons. Finally, the ‘effectiveness’ and long-term destructive potential for nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons differs greatly, with nuclear weapons being the most destructive and long-lasting, and chemical and biological weapons being relatively less fatal and enduring.

Economic issues also affect weapons of mass destruction. For example, the amount of resources invested in a biological weapon versus a chemical weapon, or nuclear weapon, will achieve varying results. Limited access to differing types of materials or resources such as nuclear fuel or biology labs will also affect research into differing types of weapons of mass destruction. From the point of view of a non-state actor looking to create a weapon of mass destruction (particularly critical in the current environment of fourth-generation warfare, in which smaller groups play a main role), such concerns are of crucial importance, as financial and other resources are quite limited for non-state actors. Planning and research also are a key factor which must be considered when a group chooses to research or acquire a weapon of mass destruction- for example, the design of the atomic bomb is already well-known, chemicals have fixed compositions which are also known, however biological weapons may require laboratory research or incubation in a laboratory before they may be used.

Regardless of differing fundamental characteristics of weapon systems, the current strategic classification of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons as ‘weapons of mass destruction’ serves a useful purpose for the United States, as it allows isolation of various highly dangerous weapons systems and coordination of efforts to control such weapons systems. Currently, nations worldwide have signed treaties to control all three of the enumerated types of weapons of mass destruction. Such treaties allow countries to better minimize exposure risk to weapons of mass destruction and to impose an international order where use of such weapons is forbidden. Recently, there has been little mass usage of nuclear, chemical, or biological agents in warfare, and such restraint has a beneficial effect on worldwide health: without international efforts to control use of nuclear, biological, and chemical toxins, continuous cumulative wartime use of weapons of mass destruction might render sections of the world uninhabitable for tens if not hundreds of years.