|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
The U.S. Needs a Chemical Warfare Capability
| Article
# : |
13960 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
2 / 1988 |
2,879 Words |
| Author
: |
Joseph D. Douglass, Jr.
Joseph D. Douglass is a national security consultant. His
latest book, America the Vulnerable (Lexington Books, 1987),
presents a detailed account of the threat of chemical and
biological welfare. |
During the 1950s, the world witnessed the emergence of a revolution in military affairs brought about by nuclear weapons. These weapons provided enormous increases in explosive power. The weapons were so much more powerful than their conventional predecessors that new terms for explosive power were needed--kilotons and megatons of TNT equivalent. Yet as great as these increases in explosive power were, they were not nearly as significant as the improvements in chemical and biological weapons that have been made possible by the revolution in life sciences that emerged in the mid-1970s and is still just in its infancy.
Nevertheless, between 1969 and 1974, the United States effectively discarded its chemical warfare capability. This was not the result of an arms control agreement. It was simply a unilateral action that reflected the defense establishment's dislike for the field, the adverse publicity that had arisen out of the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam, continuing efforts by the Soviets to pressure the United States into unilaterally leaving the field, and the efforts of certain Western scientists to end the use of biological and chemical agents in war.
In 1974, the U.S. Army even decided to disband its Chemical Corps. However, the Chemical Corps had been established by Congress, and the Army learned that it would have to return to Congress to abolish the Corps. The timing for such an action was unpropitious, since a flood of information was emerging indicating that the Soviets were hard at work expanding their chemical warfare capability and that U.S. and NATO forces had become exceedingly vulnerable to chemical attacks. Studies concluded that for all target complexes examined, a Soviet attack with chemical munitions would reduce the military capability of the NATO forces by from 95 to 100 percent. Thus, beginning around 1976, alarms began to sound and arguments emerge on the need for greatly improved chemical munitions.
Notwithstanding the tireless efforts of a few stalwart advocates, the U.S. chemical modernization program received little support and attention until after then-Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced in September 1981 that the Soviets were conducting chemical and toxin warfare in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan. Mainly receiving impetus by clinging to the coattails of the Reagan-Weinberger defense budget increases, the budget for chemical warfare began a slow increase.
While most of the increases were earmarked for defense, two new munitions, the binary artillery shell and bomb, were also
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
