		Questions Raised By D. P. Goldstein and J. E. Davis
Background Agent Orange & Anthrax Questions Raised Works Cited Home		What are the ethical issues? There have always been critics criticizing the logic on chemical and biological warfare. Some of the critics believe that the logic the U.S. Defense is using is idiotic and others believe the logic is great and well researched and documented. Critics say that if the troops aren't harmed by chemical warfare, who is? And the answer is the civilians, the innocent civilians are being killed. Harvard biologist Matthew Meselson, one of the most outspoken critics of CBW (Chemical-Bioloigcal Warfare) has said: In a battle where chemicals are used the ratio of civilian to military casualties would be on the order of twenty to one. Poisonous gases could be carried ten to twenty miles by prevailing winds from the point where they are dispersed, and could continue to kill people for days afterward. (qt. in Taylor 92) It is the threat to unprepared civilians that most worries many of the critics who oppose CBW. Critics say for the chemical and biological weapons to be effective they must be near the expected area of battle or conflict (Taylor 92-93). Chemical and biological warfare are serious threats. Caruso (446a) states, "One of my assigned areas of expertise included nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare." Despite treaties to the contrary, the threat of chemical and biological warfare during any armed conflict is a real one. The crew and troops were vaccinated against known potential pathogens. Unfortunately, casulties in this scenario can appear hours to days after exposure, and there was no way to ensure absolute protection against all possible biological warfare agents. As the Economist notes: Many environmental groups, including Greenpeace, oppose incineration. They argue that gases released into the air might be poisonous. Other methods are under study. These include oxidation or biological decontamination of the material into concrete. But many defense analysts want to press on with the two available methods rather than delaying further. They argue that the risk of usable weapons continuing to sit around outweighs the enviromnental gain from better disposal methods (338). America has two incinerators and plans on building seven more. Russia plans to build incinerators as well. Many ethical questions arise on the topic of chemical and biological weapon manufacturing. "Some wonder why America and Russia are reluctant to give up arms they have no intention of using" (Choke Hold). But also, questions arise on the funding of these projects. How do we fund these? The military claims the research is used for defense, but there is no clear distinction on what it is really used for at all. "It is not an arguement to stop further new, potentially beneficial research. Military motives do fund much research which can be applied to civil use, but the motivation is wrong" (Macer). What if they fell in the wrong hands? As dangerous as chemical and biological warfare is, countries are worried that these weapons will fall into the wrong hands. The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention bans the development of places to test such weapons, but the USA has built large maximum containment facilities and admits to having 31,000 tons of chemical agents. The only other country admitting to having chemical and/or biological agents is Russia, who says it has 40,000 tons of chemical agents. To reassure countries they need not keep chemical weapons in store for another, new convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), was born. It commits any party to the treaty to destroy their weapons in no less than ten years, and set up provisions to make sure the production of new weapons aren't made. It is convention, especially in the case of Russia, because the weapons might fall into the wrong hands. Chemical terrorists really do not have to steal weapons, they can just make their own. On March 20th, 1995, a small group of terrorists without large scientific resources, produced enough deadly nerve gas to kill ten people, injure many more, and grab the attention of millions after unleashing the nerve gas on the Tokyo underground railway. Also authorities are concerned about Russian chemical-weapon storage sites because someone with a little money could sway the mind of an impoverished Russian soldier. Four of the seven Russian chemical-weapons storage sites have been reported to have lax security, simple locks, no alarms, and unguarded doors. The safest idea countries have of chemical disposal are incineration at high temperature or chemical degradation (where another chemical is added to neutralize the hazardous effect). This page was created by Daniel P. Goldstein and Jon E. Davis on 3/18/99 for History and Thought of Western Man, Rich East High School, Park Forest, Illinois. Return to Index

Questions Raised

By D. P. Goldstein and J. E. Davis

Questions Raised

What are the ethical issues?

There have always been critics criticizing the logic on chemical and biological warfare. Some of the critics believe that the logic the U.S. Defense is using is idiotic and others believe the logic is great and well researched and documented. Critics say that if the troops aren't harmed by chemical warfare, who is? And the answer is the civilians, the innocent civilians are being killed. Harvard biologist Matthew Meselson, one of the most outspoken critics of CBW (Chemical-Bioloigcal Warfare) has said:

In a battle where chemicals are used the ratio of civilian to military casualties would be on the order of twenty to one. Poisonous gases could be carried ten to twenty miles by prevailing winds from the point where they are dispersed, and could continue to kill people for days afterward. (qt. in Taylor 92)

It is the threat to unprepared civilians that most worries many of the critics who oppose CBW. Critics say for the chemical and biological weapons to be effective they must be near the expected area of battle or conflict (Taylor 92-93).

Chemical and biological warfare are serious threats. Caruso (446a) states, "One of my assigned areas of expertise included nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare." Despite treaties to the contrary, the threat of chemical and biological warfare during any armed conflict is a real one. The crew and troops were vaccinated against known potential pathogens. Unfortunately, casulties in this scenario can appear hours to days after exposure, and there was no way to ensure absolute protection against all possible biological warfare agents.

As the Economist notes:

Many environmental groups, including Greenpeace, oppose incineration. They argue that gases released into the air might be poisonous. Other methods are under study. These include oxidation or biological decontamination of the material into concrete. But many defense analysts want to press on with the two available methods rather than delaying further. They argue that the risk of usable weapons continuing to sit around outweighs the enviromnental gain from better disposal methods (338).

America has two incinerators and plans on building seven more. Russia plans to build incinerators as well.

Many ethical questions arise on the topic of chemical and biological weapon manufacturing. "Some wonder why America and Russia are reluctant to give up arms they have no intention of using" (Choke Hold). But also, questions arise on the funding of these projects. How do we fund these? The military claims the research is used for defense, but there is no clear distinction on what it is really used for at all. "It is not an arguement to stop further new, potentially beneficial research. Military motives do fund much research which can be applied to civil use, but the motivation is wrong" (Macer).

What if they fell in the wrong hands?

As dangerous as chemical and biological warfare is, countries are worried that these weapons will fall into the wrong hands. The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention bans the development of places to test such weapons, but the USA has built large maximum containment facilities and admits to having 31,000 tons of chemical agents. The only other country admitting to having chemical and/or biological agents is Russia, who says it has 40,000 tons of chemical agents.

To reassure countries they need not keep chemical weapons in store for another, new convention, the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), was born. It commits any party to the treaty to destroy their weapons in no less than ten years, and set up provisions to make sure the production of new weapons aren't made. It is convention, especially in the case of Russia, because the weapons might fall into the wrong hands.

Chemical terrorists really do not have to steal weapons, they can just make their own. On March 20th, 1995, a small group of terrorists without large scientific resources, produced enough deadly nerve gas to kill ten people, injure many more, and grab the attention of millions after unleashing the nerve gas on the Tokyo underground railway.

Also authorities are concerned about Russian chemical-weapon storage sites because someone with a little money could sway the mind of an impoverished Russian soldier. Four of the seven Russian chemical-weapons storage sites have been reported to have lax security, simple locks, no alarms, and unguarded doors.

The safest idea countries have of chemical disposal are incineration at high temperature or chemical degradation (where another chemical is added to neutralize the hazardous effect).

This page was created by Daniel P. Goldstein and Jon E. Davis on 3/18/99 for History and Thought of Western Man, Rich East High School, Park Forest, Illinois.

Return to Index