1. Weapons of Mass Destruction Volume I: Chemical and
Biological Weapons
2. Weapons of Mass Destruction An Encyclopedia of Worldwide
Policy, Technology, and HistoryEric A. Croddy and James J. Wirtz,
Editors Jeffrey A. Larsen, Managing Editor Foreword by David Kay
Volume I: Chemical and Biological Weapons Eric A. Croddy, Editor
Santa Barbara, California Denver, Colorado Oxford, England
3. Copyright 2005 by Eric A. Croddy, James J. Wirtz, and
Jeffrey A. Larsen All rights reserved. No part of this publication
may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in
any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief
quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from
the publishers.Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Weapons of mass destruction : an encyclopedia of worldwide policy,
technology, and history / Eric A. Croddy and James J. Wirtz,
editors.p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN
1-85109-490-3 (hardback : alk. paper)ISBN 1-85109-495-4 (e-book) 1.
Weapons of mass destructionEncyclopedias. I. Croddy, Eric, 1966 II.
Wirtz, James J., 1958 U793.W427 2005 358'.3'03dc22 2004024651
0807060510987654321This book is also available on the World Wide
Web as an eBook. Visit abc-clio.com for details.ABC-CLIO, Inc. 130
Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California
931161911This book is printed on acid-free paper.Manufactured in
the United States of America
4. ContentsWeapons of Mass Destruction An Encyclopedia of
Worldwide Policy, Technology, and HistoryVolume I: Chemical and
Biological WeaponsForeword, vii Preface: Weapons of Mass
Destruction, ix Editors and Contributors, xiii A-to-Z List of
Entries, Volumes I and II, xvii Introduction: Chemical and
Biological Weapons, xxv Chronology: Chemical and Biological
Weapons, xxxi Chemical and Biological Weapons, Entries A to Y, 1Key
Documents: Chemical and Biological Weapons, 341 Bibliography,
395Index, 413v
5. ForewordDavid KaySenior Research Analyst, Potomac Institute,
The importance of this encyclopedia was under- Washington, D.C.,
and former Director, scored by the fact that virtually the only
area of Iraq Survey Group (20032004) agreement in the 2004 U.S.
presidential campaign between the two major candidates, President
George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry, was that the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction poses the most serious
national security threat with made new classes of weapons possible.
But scientific which the next president would have to deal.
progress marches at a very fast rate, leaving behind While the
prospect of chemical, biological, radi-old, but still dangerous,
knowledge. For example, ological, or nuclear weapons falling into
the handsthe secrets regarding methods for enriching ura- of
terrorists or regimes hostile to the United Statesnium were simply
bought by the Iraqis from the and its friends is indeed a
frightening prospect, howU.S. Government Printing Office. That
office could many of us understand exactly what this means? not
imagine that there was anything important in a When were such
weapons first developed? Which40-year-old project from the dawn of
the U.S. nu- states and scientists are leading these
developments?clear program. Have these weapons actually been used
in the past? In another remarkable case, uranium enrichment How
often and with what consequencenot only technology was stolen from
a commercial company for the populations they were used against,
but forin Holland by A. Q. Khana rather ordinary Pak- those that
used them, as well? Do these weapons re-istani who went to Germany
to earn an engineering ally give states a decisive edge over their
adversaries? degree. Khan subsequently used this technology to How
easy are they to develop and use? Does the easedevelop Pakistans
nuclear weapons and then sold the of development or use of such
weapons by states, same technology to North Korea, Iran, and Libya.
like North Korea, differ from the obstacles faced by The techniques
of gene modification, which less than terrorist groups, like
al-Qaeda? What are the tools20 years ago were the stuff of Nobel
prizes, are now available to the United States to halt the spread
of routinely taught in American high schools and com- such weapons?
Have we had any success in limitingmunity colleges and have opened
up whole new the spread of these weapons? Are there any protec-
classes of biological weapons. As this study also tive measures
that individuals can take to lessenmakes clear, even the safe
disposal of weapons of their vulnerability if such weapons are
used?mass destruction following a states decision to aban- These
are but a few of the questions that the au-don or limit their
programs presents serious chal- thors of this authoritative
two-volume study at- lenges of preventing the weapons and
associated tempt to answer. This encyclopedia will have
endur-technology from falling into the hands of terrorists. ing
importance as states and societies attempt toThe thousands of
Soviet-era nuclear weapons and come to terms with the consequence
of the collisionthe engineering talent that created them represent
a of scientific progress with the failure to develop a re- clear
and present danger with which the world has liable global security
structure. The initial develop- not yet completely dealt. The
readers of this work will ment of chemical, biological, and nuclear
weapons, find numerous examples of the lowering of the bar- as this
study makes clear, often involved scientific riers to the
acquisition by states and terrorists of these and engineering
breakthroughs of the highest most terrible of weapons. order. The
paths to enriching uranium and geneti-But this study does not
simply present the horrors cally modifying pathogens are but two
examples ofof a world filled with weapons of mass destruction. It
such successes, scientific breakthroughs that have also catalogs
and illuminates the various methods of vii
6. viii FOREWORDattempting to control and constrain these
weaponsthe few efforts made in this regard, it is hard not to
including treaties and agreements such as the Nuclear come away
with a sense of dread for the future. Most Non-Proliferation Treaty
and the Chemical Weapons control efforts have been aimed at states,
not at ter- Convention, as well as intrusive inspections, such as
rorists operating outside of the control of states. the efforts of
the United Nations to hunt suchHopefully students and policy makers
using this weapons in Iraq after the first Gulf War. As will bebook
a few years hence will be able to record more clear to the reader,
such endeavors have had both suc-progress toward meeting this new
challenge. cesses and failures. Much remains to be done to en- The
authors and editors have done an important sure that their
effectiveness matches the problemsservice by pulling together such
an illuminating posed by the proliferation of such weapons. The
study at exactly the point when there is a broad po- largest gap in
effective mechanisms of control and re-litical consensus of the
importance of the problem. sponse to the acquisition of such
weapons is with re- One can only hope that our citizens and our
politi- gard to the efforts of terrorists groups to acquire the cal
leaders take the time to explore the depth of in- means of mass
murder. While these volumes identifyformation presented here.
7. Preface: Weapons The term weapon of mass destruction (WMD)
isof Mass Destruction a relatively modern expression. It was
probably first used in print media following the interna-Eric A.
Croddy and James J. Wirtz tional uproar over Germanys aerial
bombardment of the Basque city of Guernica in April 1937. (The
latter event was famously depicted in Picassos painting Guernica y
Luno.) Only a year before, an- never particularly enamored by
chemical or biolog- other Axis power, Italy, had begun using
mustard ical weapons and treated them as a deterrent to be and
other chemical warfare (CW) agents inused in retaliation for the
use of chemical or bio- Abyssinia (modern-day Ethiopia).1 During
the logical weapons used by the opponent. By the early anxious
years leading up World War II, WMD re- 1990s, the U.S. military had
abandoned offensive ferred to the indiscriminate killing of
civilians by use of these weapons, although it maintained a re-
modern weaponry, especially aircraft. It alsosearch and development
program designed to pro- echoed the fear of chemical weapons that
was un- duce effective equipment, procedures, medications, leashed
by World War I, which had come to a con- and inoculations to defend
against chemical and bi- clusion just a few years earlier.ological
attack. Following the development of the atomic bomb Over the last
decade, much has been written in 1945, the term WMD came to include
nuclearabout WMD. The meaning of the term itself is and eventually
biological weapons. WMD was ap- somewhat controversial, although
there is a formal, parently first used to describe nuclear warfare
by legalistic definition. According to U.S. Code Title Soviet
strategists. In 1956, during the 20th Commu-50, War and National
Defense, per the U.S. Con- nist Party Congress in Moscow, the
Soviet Minister gress, the term weapon of mass destructionmeans of
Defenseand Hero of StalingradMarshalany weapon or device that is
intended, or has the Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov prophesied
thatcapability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to modern
warfare will be characterized by the mas-a significant number of
people through the release, sive use of air forces, various rocket
weapons and dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous various
means of mass destruction such as atomic,chemicals or their
precursors; a disease organism; thermonuclear, chemical and
bacteriologicalradiation or radioactivity.4 For its part, the U.S.
De- weapons.2 In that same year, the Hungarian Minis- partment of
Defense has a similar characterization ter of Defense echoed
Marshal Zhukov, stating that of WMD, although in addition it
includes ...the Under modern conditions, the decisive aspect of
means to deliver [WMD].5 So, what makes a operational planning is
the use of nuclear and other weapon massively destructive? Is it
the type of inju- weapons of mass destruction.3 rious agents
involved, namely radioactive, chemical, When the West learned of
Zhukovs speech, na-or biological, or is it that the attack itself
produces tional security strategists in the United States and
significant casualties or destruction? Also what elsewhere became
quite concerned. By inference,would significant mean in this
context: ten, a hun- they concluded that WMDnuclear, biological,
dred, or a thousand casualties? What if very few and chemical
weaponswere an integral part ofpeople are actually killed or hurt
by at attack? In the Soviet military doctrine. Partly in response
tolatter respect, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investiga- Zhukovs
ministrations on WMD, the United States tion has a rather unique
and somewhat satisfying reviewed its offensive chemical and
biological interpretation of the term WMD, invoked when weapons
program in 1958. The U.S. military was the U.S. government indicted
Timothy McVeighix
8. x PREFACEwith using a WMD in his 1995 terrorist attack
inture and that civilized people everywhere reject the Oklahoma
City. In this case, although the deviceuse of chemical and
biological weapons. Interna- used was a conventional bomb
(employing ammo- tional law is replete with treaties, agreements,
and nium nitrate-fuel oil explosive), A weapon crosses regimes
whose purpose is to proscribe the use of the WMD threshold when the
consequences of itsthese weapons, or mitigate the consequences of
any release overwhelm local responders.6 such use. In particular,
the world has successfully Some analysts, however, have suggested
that kept nuclear weapons in reserve for almost sixty various
technical hurdles prevent chemical andyears as truly deterrent
weapons of last resort. even biological weapons from causing
casualtiesOur encyclopedia covers a wide range of topics, on a
truly massive scale. Some point to the Aum some historical, some
drawn from todays headlines. Shinrikyo sarin attack on the Tokyo
subway system We describe many of the pathogens, diseases, sub- on
March 20, 1995, which resulted in eleven stances, and machines that
can serve as weapons of deaths, as an example of the limits of WMD.
Theymass destruction, as well as their associated delivery note
that high-explosives have been used with far systems. We also
describe important events and in- greater lethal effects than sarin
in the annals ofdividuals that have been influential in the
develop- modern terrorism. Others are increasingly con-ment of
weapons of mass destruction and doctrines cerned about the
destructive potential of evenfor their use (or control). We have
encouraged our rudimentary weapons. Analysts today are
worried,contributors to highlight ongoing controversies and for
instance, that terrorists might try to employ ra- contemporary
concerns about WMD and current diological dispersal devices or
dirty bombs.international arms control and nonproliferation ef-
These weapons do not detonate with a fission re-forts intended to
reduce the threat they pose to action, but rather utilize
conventional explosives to world peace and security. Even a work of
this length, distribute radiological materials and contaminate
however, cannot completely cover the history, sci- a given area.
Few deaths are likely to result from theence, and personal stories
associated with a topic of effects of a dirty bomb, but the
consequencesinthis magnitude, so we have included abundant ref-
terms of anxiety, clean-up, and the recognized abil-erences to help
readers take those initial steps for ity of a terrorist to conduct
the very act itselffurther study of the topics we survey. would
likely be far reaching. Acknowledgments About the EncyclopediaOur
deepest debt is to the contributors who made The very presence of
chemical, biological and nu- this volume a reality. Many of them
joined the proj- clear weapons in international arsenals and the
po- ect at its inauguration several years ago and have tential that
they might fall into the hands of terror-waited a long time to see
their work in print. It is im- ist organizations guarantees that
weapons of mass possible for just three people to be experts on all
of destruction will be of great policy, public, and schol- the
subjects covered in this volume, and without the arly interest for
years to come. We cannot resolve thehard work of our contributors,
this encyclopedia debates prompted by WMD, but we hope that wewould
never have been completed. Thanks to our and our contributors can
provide facts to help theresearch assistants, Abraham Denmark and
Laura reader sort through the controversies that are likely
Fontaine, who uncovered most of the key docu- to emerge in the
years ahead. Much that is containedments in both volumes and wrote
a few entries for in these volumes is disturbing and even
frightening;us, as well. We also want to express our appreciation
it is impossible to write a cheery encyclopedia about to a senior
government official who reviewed Vol- weapons whose primary purpose
is to conduct ume II for accuracy and sensitive material. We owe
postindustrial-scale mass murder. The sad truth ofa special debt to
Jeff Larsen, our managing editor, the matter is that chemical,
biological, radiological,whose help was instrumental in the success
of this and nuclear weapons reflect the willingness of hu-project.
Not only did he provide editorial support to mans to go to great
lengths to find increasinglyboth volumes, but he displayed a keen
ability to deal lethal and destructive instruments of war and
vio-with the publisher and our 95 contributors, keep lence. We are
pleased to note, however, that much oftrack of timelines,
requirements, and progress, and what is reported in these volumes
is historical in na-gently push the two of us when we needed
encour-
9. PREFACE xiagement during this multiyear project that
involved Frederick R. Sidell, Ernest T. Takafuji, and David over
500 separate parts. Finally, we also want to ex- R. Franz, eds.,
Textbook of Military Medicine, press our appreciation to Alicia
Merritt, MarthaPart I: Warfare, Weaponry, and the Casualty: Whitt,
Giulia Rossi, and the behind-the-scenesMedical Aspects of Chemical
and Biological copyeditors at ABC-CLIO who worked tirelessly
toWarfare (Washington, DC: Borden Institute, help get this
manuscript into print. We discoveredWalter Reed Army Medical
Center, 1997), p. 54.3. Quoted in the archives, Report of Colonel-
that nothing is a trivial matter when it comes to a General Istvn
Bata, Hungarian Minister of manuscript of this size. The commitment
of ourDefense, to Members of the HWP Central publisher to this
topic, and the dedication of theCommittee on the Conduct of the
Staff- production staff at ABC-CLIO, greatly facilitated Command
Exercise Held, 17 July 1956, found at the completion of these
volumes.the International Relations and SecurityWe hope that this
encyclopedia will help informNetwork (Switzerland), documents
collection, the public debate about weapons of mass
destruc-http://www.isn.ethz.ch/ tion and international security
policy, with the goal4. Title 50, Chapter 40, Sec. 2302. of never
again seeing such weapons used in anger.5. Office of the Secretary
of Defense, Proliferation: Threat and Response (Washington, DC:
U.S. Notes Government Printing Office, 2001), p. 4. 1. Stanley D.
Fair, Mussolinis Chemical War,6. U.S. Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), The Army, January 1985, p. 52.FBI and Weapons
of Mass Destruction, 4 2. Jeffery K. Smart, History of Chemical and
August 1999, http://norfolk.fbi.gov.wmd.htm Biological Warfare: An
American Perspective, in
10. Editors Editors and ERIC A. CRODDY (EDITOR, VOLUME I,
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS) Contributors Analyst with U.S.
Pacific Command, Pearl Harbor, HIJAMES J. WIRTZ (EDITOR, VOLUME
II,JEFFREY M. BALE NUCLEAR WEAPONS) Senior Research Associate,
Monterey Institute Professor and Chair, Department of Nationalof
International Studies, Monterey, CA Security Affairs, U.S. Naval
Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, and Senior Fellow,ZACH BECKER
Center for International Security and Science Applications
International Corporation, Cooperation, Stanford University, Palo
Alto, CA Arlington, VAJEFFREY A. LARSEN (MANAGING EDITOR, ANJALI
BHATTACHARJEE VOLUMES I AND II) Research Associate, WMD Terrorism
Project,Senior Policy Analyst, Science ApplicationsCenter for
Nonproliferation Studies, MontereyInternational Corporation and
President, Institute of International Studies, Monterey, CALarsen
Consulting Group, Colorado Springs,CO JENNIFER BROWER Science and
Technology Policy Analyst, The ContributorsRAND Corporation,
Arlington, VA GARY ACKERMAN Deputy Director, Chemical and
BiologicalWILLIAM D. CASEBEER Weapons Nonproliferation Program,
Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Monterey Institute
of International Studies,U.S. Air Force Academy, CO Monterey, CA
KALPANA CHITTARANJAN JEFFREY A. ADAMSResearch Fellow, Observer
ResearchSenior Analyst, Analytic Services, Inc. (ANSER),
Foundation, Chennai Chapter, Chennai, IndiaArlington, VA CLAY CHUN
PETER ALMQUISTChairman, Department of Distance Education, Bureau of
Arms Control, U.S. Department ofU.S. Army War College, Carlisle
Barracks, PA State, Washington, DC WILLIAM S. CLARK ELIZABETH
AYLOTTDefense Policy Analyst, Science Applications Plans and Policy
Analyst, Science ApplicationsInternational Corporation, Arlington,
VA International Corporation, Ramstein Air Base, Germany CHRIS
CRAIGE Graduate Student, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey,
CA xiii
11. xiv EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORSMALCOLM DAVIS ANDREA GABBITAS
Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, KingsGraduate Student,
Department of Political College London, London, UKScience,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA ABE DENMARK
Graduate Student, Graduate School ofSCOTT SIGMUND GARTNER
International Studies, University of Denver,Associate Professor,
Department of Political Denver, COScience, University of
CaliforniaDavis, Davis, CAJOHN W. DIETRICHMICHAEL GEORGE Assistant
Professor, Bryant University, Policy Analyst, Science Applications
Smithfield, RIInternational Corporation, Arlington, VAANDREW M.
DORMANDON GILLICH Lecturer in Defence Studies, Kings College
Nuclear Research and Operations Officer, U.S. London, London,
UKArmy, Colorado Springs, COFRANNIE EDWARDS DAN GOODRICH Office of
Emergency Services, San Jose, CAPublic Health Department, Santa
Clara, CALAWRENCE R. FINKPHIL GRIMLEY Corporate Export
Administration, InternationalProfessor of Pathology and Molecular
Cell Legal Department, Science ApplicationsBiology, F. Edward
Herbert Medical School, International Corporation, Arlington,
VAUniformed Services University of Health Sciences, Bethesda, MD
STEPHANIE FITZPATRICK Arms Control/Policy Analyst,
IndependentEUGENIA K. GUILMARTIN Consultant, Arlington, VA
Assistant Professor, Department of Social Sciences, U.S. Military
Academy, West Point, NY SCHUYLER FOERSTER President, World Affairs
Council of Pittsburgh, JOHN HART Pittsburgh, PAResearcher,
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Solna, Sweden
LAURA FONTAINE Graduate Student, Graduate School ofPETER HAYS
International Studies, University of Denver,Executive Editor, Joint
Force Quarterly, National Denver, CODefense University, Washington,
DCJ. RUSS FORNEYJAMES JOYNER Associate Professor, Department of
ChemistryManaging Editor, Strategic Insights, and Life Science,
U.S. Military Academy, West Washington, DC Point, NY AARON KARP
MARTIN FURMANSKIProfessor, Old Dominion University, and Scientists
Working Group on Biological andAssistant Professor, U.S. Joint
Forces Staff Chemical Weapons, Center for Arms Control College,
Norfolk, VA and Nonproliferation, Ventura, CA KERRY KARTCHNER
Senior Advisor for Missile Defense Policy, U.S. State Department,
Washington, DC
12. EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORS xvMIKE KAUFHOLD CLAUDINE MCCARTHY
Senior National Security Policy Analyst, ScienceNational
Association of County and City Health Applications International
Corporation, San Officials, Washington, DC Antonio, TX JEFFREY D.
MCCAUSLAND BRET KINMANDirector, Leadership in Conflict Initiative,
Graduate Student, Department of National Dickinson College,
Carlisle, PA Security Affairs, U.S. Naval Postgraduate School,
Monterey, CAPATRICIA MCFATE Science Applications International
Corporation, KIMBERLY L. KOSTEFF Santa Fe, NM Policy Analyst,
Science Applications International Corporation, Arlington, VAROB
MELTON Assistant Professor of Military Strategic Studies, AMY E.
KRAFFT 34th Education Group, U.S. Air Force Academy, Research
Biologist, Department of Molecular CO Genetic Pathology, Armed
Forces Institute of Pathology, Rockville, MDBRIAN MORETTI Assistant
Professor, Department of Physics, U.S. JENNIFER LASECKIMilitary
Academy, West Point, NY Computer Sciences Corporation, Alexandria,
VA JENNIFER HUNT MORSTEIN PETER LAVOY Senior Analyst, Science
Applications Director, Center for Contemporary Conflict,
International Corporation, McLean, VA U.S. Naval Postgraduate
School, Monterey, CA EDWARD P. NAESSENS, JR. SEAN LAWSON Associate
Professor, Nuclear Engineering Graduate Student, Department of
Science and Program Director, Department of Physics, U.S.
Technology Studies, Rensselaer PolytechnicMilitary Academy, West
Point, NY Institute, Troy, NY T. V. PAUL MICHAEL LIPSONJames McGill
Professor of International Assistant Professor, Department of
PoliticalRelations, McGill University, Montreal, Canada Science,
Concordia University, Montreal, CanadaROY PETTIS Science Advisor to
the Office of Strategic and BRIAN LITALIEN Theater Defenses, Bureau
of Arms Control, U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC
State Department, Washington, DCMORTEN BREMER MAERLIRICH
PILCHResearcher, Norwegian Institute of International Scientist in
Residence, Chemical and BiologicalAffairs, Oslo,
NorwayNonproliferation Program, Center for Nonproliferation
Studies, Monterey Institute of TOM MAHNKEN International Studies,
Monterey, CA Professor of Strategy, Naval War College, Newport, RI
ELIZABETH PRESCOTT International Institute for Strategic Studies,
ROBERT MATHEWSWashington, DC Asia-Pacific Centre for Military Law,
University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
13. xvi EDITORS AND CONTRIBUTORSBEVERLEY RIDER ROBERT SOBESKI
Senior Scientist, Genencor International, Inc.,Assistant Professor,
Department of Physics, U.S. Palo Alto, CAMilitary Academy, West
Point, NYGUY ROBERTSJOHN SPYKERMAN Principal Director, Negotiations
Policy, Office of Foreign Affairs Officer, U.S. State Department,
the Secretary of Defense, Washington DCWashington, DCJ. SIMON
ROFETROY S. THOMAS Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, Kings
Fellow, Center for Strategic Intelligence College London, London,
UK Research, Defense Intelligence Agency,Washington, DC KEN ROGERS
Professor of Political Science, Department ofCHARLES L. THORNTON
Social Sciences and Philosophy, Arkansas TechResearch Fellow,
Center for International and University, Russellville, AR Security
Studies, School of Public Policy,University of Maryland, College
Park, MD STEVEN ROSENKRANTZ Foreign Affairs Officer, Office of
Strategic and ROD THORNTON Theater Defenses, Bureau of Arms
Control, U.S. Lecturer, Defence Studies Department, Kings State
Department, Washington, DC College London, London, UKC. ROSS
SCHMIDTLEINANTHONY TUResearch Fellow, Department of
MedicalDepartment of Biochemistry and MolecularPhysics, Memorial
Sloan-Kettering CancerBiology, Colorado State University, Ft
Collins, COCenter, New York, NYPETER VALE GLEN M. SEGELL Nelson
Mandela Professor of Politics, Rhodes Director, Institute of
Security Policy, London,University, Grahamstown, South Africa
UKGILLES VAN NEDERVEEN D. SHANNON SENTELL, JR.Independent
Consultant, Fairfax, VAAssistant Professor, Department of Physics,
U.S.Military Academy, West Point, NYMICHAEL WHEELERSenior Defense
Analyst, Science Applications JACQUELINE SIMON International
Corporation, McLean, VAIndependent Consultant, Ottawa, CanadaJOLIE
WOOD JOSHUA SINAI Graduate Student, Department of Government,
Analytic Services, Inc. (ANSER), Alexandria, VAUniversity of Texas,
Austin, TXSTANLEY R. SLOAN JACK WOODALL Visiting Scholar,
Middlebury College, and Visiting Professor, Department of Medical
Director, Atlantic Community Initiative,Biochemistry, Federal
University of Rio de Richmond, VTJaneiro, BrazilJAMES M. SMITH
ROBERT WYMAN Director, USAF Institute for National Security Arms
Control Operations Specialist, Science Studies, U.S. Air Force
Academy, ColoradoApplications International Corporation, Springs,
COArlington, VA
14. Volume I: Chemical and Biological Weapons A to Z List of
Entries, Aberdeen Proving Ground Abrin Volumes I and II Adamsite
(DM, diphenylaminochlorarsine Aerosol Agent Orange Agroterrorism
(Agricultural BiologicalChemical and Biological Munitions and
MilitaryWarfare)Operations Al-QaedaChemical Warfare Al
ShifaChemical Weapons Convention (CWC) Amiton (VG) Chlamydia
Psittaci (Psittacosis) Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil (ANFO)Chlorine Gas
Anthrax Chloropicrin (PS, Trichloronitromethane) Aralsk Smallpox
OutbreakChoking Agents (Asphyxiants) Arbusov ReactionCholera
(Vibrio cholerae) ArsenicalsConotoxin AtropineCrimean-Congo
Hemorrhagic Fever Aum Shinrikyo Crop Dusters (Aerial Applicators)
The Australia Group CS Cyclosarin (GF) Bari Incident Bhopal, India:
Union Carbide Accident Decontamination Bigeye (BLU-80)
Demilitarization of Chemical and Biological Binary Chemical
MunitionsAgents Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention
Dianisidine(BTWC) Difluor (DF, Difluoromethylphosphonate)
Biological Terrorism: Early Warning via the Diisopropyl
Fluorophosphate (DFP)Internet Dioxin Biological WarfareDiphosgene
Biopreparat Dual-Use Bioregulators Dugway Proving Ground
Bioterrorism BleachEA2192 Blood AgentsEMPTA (O-Ethyl
Methylphosphonothioic Acid) Botulism (Botulinum Toxin)Enterovirus
70 Brucellosis (Brucella Bacterium)Equine Encephalitis (VEE, WEE,
EEE) Ethiopia (Abyssinia) C-4 Explosives Carbamates Centers for
Disease Control and PreventionFentanyl (CDC) Fermenter Chemical
Agent MonitorFoot-and-Mouth Disease Virusxvii
15. xviii A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIESFort Detrick Oklahoma City
Bombing Fuel-Air Explosive (FAE) OrganophosphatesOsama bin Laden
Gas Gangrene Oximes Geneva Protocol Glanders (Burkholderia Mallei)
ParasitesFungal Gruinard IslandParathion (Methyl and Ethyl)
G-Series Nerve AgentsPerfluoroisobutylene (PFIB) Gulf War: Chemical
and Biological WeaponsPhosgene Gas (Carbonyl Chloride) Gulf War
SyndromePhosgene Oxime (CX, Dichloroform Oxime)Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Hague Convention Plague Halabja Incident Plasticized Explosives
Heartwater (Cowdria Ruminantium) Point Source Hemorrhagic Fevers
Porton Down, United Kingdom Herbicides PrecursorsProtective
Measures: Biological Weapons India: Chemical and Biological Weapons
Protective Measures: Chemical WeaponsProgramsPsychoincapacitants
InversionPyridostigmine Bromide Iran: Chemical and Biological
Weapons Programs Iran-Iraq WarQ-Fever Iraq: Chemical and Biological
Weapons Programs QLJapan and WMDRicin Johnston Atoll Rift Valley
FeverRiot Control Agents Kaffa, Siege ofRocky Mountain Spotted
Fever Korean War Russia: Chemical and Biological Weapons Programs
Late Blight of Potato Fungus (PhytophthoraInfestans)Sabotage Libya
and WMDSalmonella Line SourceSarin Livens Projector Semtex
Lyophilization ShikhanySimulants Marburg VirusSino-Japanese War
MelioidosisSkatole Microencapsulation Smallpox Mustard (Sulfur and
Nitrogen)Soman Mycotoxins South Africa: Chemical and Biological
Weapons Programs Napalm South Korea: Chemical and Biological
Weapons Nerve AgentsPrograms Newcastle DiseaseSpore Newport
Facility, IndianaStabilizers North Korea: Chemical and Biological
Weapons Staphylococcal Enterotoxin B Programs Stepnogorsk Novichok
Sverdlovsk Anthrax Accident
16. A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIES xixSyria: Chemical and Biological
Weapons Programs Acheson-Lililenthal Report Actinides Tabun
Airborne Alert Terrorism with CBRN Weapons Anti-Ballistic Missile
(ABM) Treaty ThickenersAntinuclear Movement TNT Anti-Satellite
(ASAT) Weapons Tobacco Mosaic VirusArms Control Tooele, UtahArms
Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) Toxins (Natural)Arms Race
Toxoids and AntitoxinsAssured Destruction Tularemia Atomic Energy
Act Tuberculosis (TB, Mycobacterium Tuberculosis) Atomic Energy
Commission Typhus (Rickettsia Prowazekii)Atomic Mass/Number/Weight
Atoms for Peace Unit 731 United Kingdom: Chemical and Biological
Backpack Nuclear Weapons Weapons ProgramsBalance of Terror United
Nations Monitoring, Verification, andBallistic Missile Defense
Organization (BMDO) Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) Ballistic
Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) United Nations Special
Commission on Iraq Ballistic Missiles (UNSCOM)Baruch Plan United
States: Chemical and Biological WeaponsBikini Island
ProgramsBombers, Russian and Chinese Nuclear-Capable Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Bombers, U.S. Nuclear-Capable Boost-Phase
Intercept VaccinesBottom-Up Review V-AgentsBrilliant Eyes
VectorBrinkmanship VECTOR: State Research Center of Virology and
British Nuclear Forces and DoctrineBiotechnologyBroken Arrow, Bent
Spear Vesicants Vietnam War Canada Deuterium Uranium (CANDU)
Reactor Vincennite (Hydrogen Cyanide) The Catholic Church and
Nuclear War Chelyabinsk-40 Weteye Bomb Chernobyl World Trade Center
Attack (1993)Cheyenne Mountain, Colorado World War I Chicken, Game
of World War II: Biological WeaponsChinese Nuclear Forces and
Doctrine World War II: Chemical WeaponsCity Avoidance Wushe
IncidentCivil Defense Cold Launch Xylyl Bromide Cold War Collateral
Damage Yellow Rain Command and Control Yemen Committee on the
Present Danger Ypres Compellence Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
(CTBT) Volume II: Nuclear WeaponsConference on Disarmament
Accidental Nuclear WarConference on Security and Cooperation in
Accuracy Europe (CSCE)
17. xx A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIESConfidence- and Security-Building
Measures Equivalent Megaton(CSBMs) Escalation ContainmentEssential
Equivalence Cooperative Threat Reduction (The Nunn-Lugar European
Atomic Energy CommunityProgram) (EURATOM) Coordinating Committee
for Multilateral Export Extended DeterrenceControls (COCOM)
Correlation of ForcesFailsafe Counterforce Targeting Fallout
CountermeasuresFast Breeder Reactors Counterproliferation Fat Man
Countervailing StrategyFederal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Countervalue Targeting Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
Coupling Firebreaks CredibilityFirst Strike Crisis Stability
Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) Critical Nuclear Weapons
Design InformationFission Weapons(CNWDI) Flexible Response
Criticality and Critical MassThe Football Cruise
MissilesForward-Based Systems Cuban Missile Crisis Fractional
Orbital Bombardment System (FOBS)Fratricide Damage LimitationFrench
Nuclear Forces and Doctrine Data Exchanges Fuel Fabrication The Day
AfterFusion Dealerting Decapitation G8 Global Partnership Program
Declared FacilityGaither Commission Report Decoys Game Theory
Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) Gas-Graphite Reactors Dense
Pack Geiger Counter Department of Defense (DOD)Global Protection
Against Limited Strikes (GPALS) Department of Energy (DOE) Graphite
Department of Homeland Security (DHS)Gravity Bombs Depleted Uranium
(U-238) Ground-Launched Cruise Missiles (GLCMs) Deployment Ground
Zero Depressed Trajectory Gun-Type Devices Dtente Deterrence
Half-Life DeuteriumHanford, Washington DisarmamentHard and Deeply
Buried Targets Distant Early Warning (DEW) Line Harmel Report
DownloadingHeavy Bombers Dual-Track DecisionHeavy ICBMsHeavy Water
Early WarningHedge Emergency Action Message (EAM) Highly Enriched
Uranium (HEU) Enola GayHiroshima Enrichment Horizontal Escalation
Entry into Force Hot Line Agreements
18. A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIES xxiHydrogen Bomb Missile Technology
Control Regime (MTCR) Mixed Oxide Fuel (MOX) ImplementationMobile
ICBMs Implosion Devices Moratorium Improvised Nuclear DevicesMoscow
Antiballistic Missile System Inadvertent EscalationMultilateral
Nuclear Force Indian Nuclear Weapons ProgramMultiple Independently
Targetable Reentry Vehicle Inertial Navigation and Missile
Guidance(MIRV) Institute for Advanced StudyMultiple Launch Rocket
System (MLRS) Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) Mutual
Assured Destruction (MAD) Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF)
Treaty International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Nagasaki Iranian
Nuclear Weapons Program National Command Authority Iraqi Nuclear
Forces and Doctrine National Emergency Airborne Command Post
Isotopes (NEACP) Israeli Nuclear Weapons Capabilities and Doctrine
National Strategic Target List National Technical Means Joint
Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Negative Security Assurances (NSAs) Joint
Declaration on Denuclearization of theNeutron Bomb (Enhanced
Radiation Weapon)Korean Peninsula Neutrons Nevada Test Site Kiloton
New Look Kwajalein Atoll Nike Zeus No First Use Launch on
Warning/Launch under Attack NonNuclear Weapons States Launchers
Nonproliferation Lawrence Livermore National LaboratoryNorth
American Aerospace Defense Command Light-Water Reactors (NORAD)
Limited Nuclear War North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)
Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT)North Korean Nuclear Weapons Program
Lithium Nuclear Binding Energy Little BoyNuclear Emergency Search
Teams (NESTs) Long-Range Theater Nuclear Forces Nuclear Fuel Cycle
Los Alamos National LaboratoryNuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)
Low Enriched Uranium (LEU)Nuclear Planning Group Nuclear Posture
Review Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle (MARV)Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) Manhattan Project Nuclear Risk Reduction Centers
(NRRCs) Massive Retaliation Nuclear Suppliers Group Medium-Range
Ballistic Missiles Nuclear Taboo Megaton Nuclear Test Ban
MegawattNuclear Warhead Storage and Transportation Midgetman
ICBMsSecurity (Russia) Military Technical Revolution (Revolution
inNuclear Weapons Effects Military Affairs) Nuclear Weapons Free
Zones (NWFZs) Minimum DeterrenceNuclear Weapons States Ministry of
Atomic Energy (MINATOM) Nuclear Winter Minuteman ICBM Missile
Defense Oak Ridge National Laboratory Missile Gap On the Beach
19. xxii A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIESOne-Point Detonation/One-Point
Safe Research Reactors On-Site Inspection Agency (OSIA)Restricted
Data (RD) Open Skies Treaty Reykjavik Summit Outer Space TreatyRide
Out Overhead Surveillance Rocky Flats, Colorado Roentgen Equivalent
Man (Rem) Pakistani Nuclear Weapons Program Rumsfeld Commission
Pantex Facility, TexasRussian Nuclear Forces and Doctrine Parity
Payload Safeguard Antiballistic Missile (ABM) System Peaceful
CoexistenceSafeguards Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Sandia National
Laboratories Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty (PNET) Savannah
River Site, South Carolina Peacekeeper Missile Sea-Launched Cruise
Missiles (SLCMs) Penetration AidsSecond Strike Permissive Action
Link (PAL)Selective Options Pershing II Sentinel Antiballistic
Missile System Phased-Array AntennaShort-Range Attack Missiles
(SRAM) Pit Shrouding Plutonium Silo Basing Polaris SLBMs/SSBNs
Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) Portsmouth Enrichment
FacilitySkybolt Poseidon SLBMs/SSBNsSouth African Nuclear Weapons
Program Post-Attack Command and Control SystemSouth Korean Nuclear
Weapons Program (PACCS) Space-Based Infrared Radar System (SBIRS)
Preemptive Attack Spartan Missile Presidential Nuclear
InitiativesSprint Missile Pressurized-Water Reactors (PWRs) Sputnik
Preventive WarStanding Consultative Commission (SCC) Primary Stage
Stealth Bomber (B-2 Spirit) Proliferation Stockpile Stewardship
Program Proliferation Security Initiative Strategic Air Command
(SAC) and Strategic Pugwash Conferences Command (STRATCOM)
Strategic Arms Limitation Talks (SALT I and SALT Quadrennial
Defense ReviewII) Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I)
Radiation Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START II) Radiation
Absorbed Dose (Rad) Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) Radiological
Dispersal Device Strategic Defenses The RAND CorporationStrategic
Forces Rapacki PlanStrategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT)
RatificationStrategic Rocket Forces Reactor OperationsSubmarines,
Nuclear-Powered Ballistic Missile Reasonable Sufficiency(SSBNs)
Reciprocal Fear of Surprise AttackSubmarine-Launched Ballistic
Missiles (SLBMs) Reconnaissance Satellites Sufficiency Red Mercury
Superiority Reentry VehiclesSurety Reliability Surprise Attack
Conference ReprocessingSurveillance
20. A TO Z LIST OF ENTRIES xxiiiSurvivability Unilateral
Initiative United Nations Special Commission on Iraq Tactical
Nuclear Weapons(UNSCOM) Telemetry United States Air Force Terminal
PhaseUnited States Army Theater High Altitude Air Defense (THAAD)
United States Navy Theater Missile Defense United States Nuclear
Forces and Doctrine Thermonuclear BombUranium Three Mile Island
Three-Plus-Three ProgramVerification Threshold States Threshold
Test Ban Treaty (TTBT)Warfighting Strategy TinianWarhead Titan
ICBMs Warsaw Pact Tous AsimutsWassenaar Arrangement
Transporter-Erector-LauncherWeapons-Grade Material Triad Weapons of
Mass Destruction (WMD) Trident Trinity Site, New MexicoX-Ray Laser
Tritium Two-Man RuleYieldU-2 Zangger Committee Underground Testing
Zone of Peace
21. Introduction: Chemical and In the United States, there are
various legal and Biological Weapons academic definitions of
weapons of mass destruc- Eric A. Croddy tion (WMD), although not
everyone may agree on any of them. The U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD) defines WMD as, Weapons that are capa- ble of a high order of
destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy
large numbers Army Marshal Georgi Konstantinovich Zhukov. In of
people. Weapons of mass destruction can be fact, it was this speech
that highlighted for U.S. pol- high explosives or nuclear,
biological, chemical, icy makers the real or perceived threat from
the So- and radiological weapons, but exclude the means viet Union,
particularly in terms of the latters pre- of transporting or
propelling the weapon wheresumed arsenal of chemical and biological
such means is a separable and divisible part of the weaponry. As
such, Zhukovs speech invigorated weapon.1 United States Cold War
research into WMD, in- According to the DOD, conventional
explosives cluding biological weaponry.4 During the Cold War, also
can be considered WMD. And this is reason- the United Statesand, to
a much greater extent, able, especially when one considers the
cumulativethe Soviet Unionamassed large chemical and bi- number of
deaths caused by gunpowder since its in-ological weapons
stockpiles. The threat posed by vention in the tenth century and by
nitroglycerinethese stockpiles has diminished greatly since the
since its invention in the nineteenth century.2 But crumbling of
the Berlin wall. the underlying assumption of what makes a Regional
threats posed by state-funded mili- weapon massively destructive is
the idea that these taries from chemical and biological weapons
also weapons can cause simultaneous mass casualties. have declined.
By the end of 2003, the U.S. govern- Nuclear weapons (dealt with
separately in Volumement had admitted that there was little
evidence II) are an obvious category of WMD, but radiolog- that
Iraq had possessed large chemical or biological ical weapons (such
as so-called dirty bombs are lessweapon stockpiles after the
mid-1990s. This has likely to cause mass injury or death (see
Radiologi-since led both the United States and British govern- cal
Dispersal Device in volume II).3ments to begin inquiries into the
faulty prewar in- Highly toxic chemical compoundsthe nerve
telligence on Iraq that was in large part the basis for agents
being prime candidatescould comprisejustifying Operation Iraqi
Freedom in March 2003.5 WMD, for example, if delivered effectively
againstOther regional threats, however, still remain. an urban
target. Biological agentsthat is, Among these, states such as Syria
and North Korea pathogens and toxins derived from plants or ani-are
suspected of possessing chemical and biological malsmight also
constitute WMD if delivered effi- weapons. Their bellicose posture
regarding their ciently. When compared to conventional and
chem-immediate neighbors and regional rivals, as well as ical
weapons, biological agents have the greatest their possession of
long-range delivery systems potential to cause mass casualties,
and, theoretically, (such as Scud missiles), make these threats
impossi- theirs could easily exceed the casualties caused by ble to
ignore. By contrast, Libyan leader Mohamar the largest nuclear
weapon. Qaddafi stated in early 2004 that he would re- In terms of
referring to nuclear, chemicalandnounce the possession of WMD,
which demon- by inference, biologicalweapons, the termstrates how
quickly the threat of weapons of mass weapons of mass destruction
first came into use destruction seems to rise and fall on the
global in 1956 when it was used in a speech by Soviet
Redagenda.xxv
22. xxvi INTRODUCTIONIndividuals and terrorist organizations
also are of chemical or biological warfare. In an excellent in-
reportedly interested in using chemical or biologicaltroduction to
chemical weapons, a short book pub- agents in their operations. A
salient example was alished by the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army
dis- statement by a self-proclaimed spokesman for the cusses a case
of CW (chemical warfare) from terrorist organization al-Qaeda, who
said in JuneChinas early history: In the Zuochuan, it is written
2002, We have the right to kill 4 million Ameri-that in the sixth
century to about the fifth century cans2 million of them
childrenand to exile B.C.E., An official of the noble princes of
the Xia, twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds ofcame from
the Jin to attack the [forces of] Qin, and thousands. Furthermore,
it is our right to fight thempoisoned the Jing River, killing more
than a division with chemical and biological weapons, so as to af-
of men. Another case is cited: In the year 1000 flict them with the
fatal maladies that have afflicted [C.E.], there was one named
Tangfu, who made poi- the Muslims because of the [Americans]
chemical son fire grenades and gave them to the Chao court and
biological weapons.6of the Song dynasty. The poisonous smoke ball,
It is not clear as of this writing whether any indi- containing
arsenic oxide (As2O3) and a type of poi- viduals or groups will be
able to carry out an attackson derived from crotonaldehyde (see the
Arsenicals using chemical or biological warfare agents, at
leastlisting), looked a bit like a precursor to a chemical in a
manner that could cause more deaths than thegas grenade. After
alighting, this weapon would September 11, 2001, attacks on the
World Trade issue forth smoke to poison the enemy and thus Center
(2,749 dead) and the Pentagon (184 dead). weaken their ability to
fight.8 In 2001, the biological agent that causes anthraxThese same
authors also point out that this is a killed five people when an
unknown actor or groupfar cry from what one expects in modern
times, for mailed Bacillus anthracis spores through the U.S.back
then chemical warfare was just in its infancy, postal system. On
February 3, 2004, envelopes con- and not only were its methods
crude but its utility in taining ricin toxin were discovered at the
office of actually killing people was limited. Because of this, the
U.S. Senate majority leader and at a mail sortingchemical weapons
were regarded as a method to facility for the White House. These
incidents involv-generally assist in conducting warfare, and at the
ing ricin resulted in no injuries, but justifiably time did not
draw any particular attention. Coming caused much concern. into the
recent era, as the developments in technol-ogy continued, chemical
weapons then really began A Brief History of WMD to demonstrate
their real menace.9 The historical record shows that mass
poisonings Another premodern military tactic that is often and the
occasional plot to spread disease amongdescribed as a form of BW
(biological warfare) is armies and civilian populations go back
many cen-the siege of Kaffa (1346 C.E.), in modern Feodosia,
turies.7 Still, chemical and biological warfareUkraine. During a
campaign by Mongol forces to (CBW)sometimes referred to in military
parlance defeat a heavily defended city of mostly Genoese as bugs
and gasis essentially a modern phe- merchants, bubonic plague
struck the area: The nomenon. It is modern in the sense that the
scienceTartars died as soon as the signs of disease appeared and
industry required to produce these types ofon their bodies:
swellings in the armpit or groin WMD have only existed since the
early 1900s. How-caused by coagulating humors, followed by a putrid
ever, there may indeed have been designs to usefever. The dying
Tartars, stunned and stupefied by chemical or biological agents as
a means of warfarethe immensity of the disaster brought about by
the (or possibly terrorism) before the Industrial Revolu-disease,
and realizing that they had no hope of es- tion. Before the late
nineteenth century (the time ofcape, lost interest in the siege.
But they ordered Louis Pasteur and many developments in chem-
corpses to be placed in catapults and lobbed into the istry),
however, the requisite scientific knowledgecity in the hope that
the intolerable stench would and engineering capacity were
insufficient to bringkill everyone inside. . . .10 We note here
that any such ideas to fruition. Obviously, this is nostench was
considered in the pre-germ theory era longer the case. to be
responsible for disease. Thus, miasmas, nox- Many books and
articles that discuss CBW often ious effluvia, or corrupt vapors
(febres pestilen- introduce the subject by bringing up past
examples tiales) were synonymous with the spread of deadly
23. INTRODUCTION xxviiepidemicsplague (causative organism:
Yersinia however, that horrific BW experiments were con- pestis)
being among the most notorious.11ducted upon Chinese civilians and
prisoners ofThe suggestion later made by historians that thewar.12
It is possible that some Allied soldiers, includ- Mongols were in
fact able to spread bubonicing American and British personnel, were
experi- plague by hurling disease-ridden corpses over themented
upon by Ishii Shiro (see the Sino-Japanese fortress walls is an
intriguing one. During the four-War listing) and his scientists,
but this has not been teenth century, however, a germ theory of
diseaseconfirmed. Apart from the East Asian theater of op- did not
exist. How would the people of that eraerations, however, no
offensive use of CBW was have known exactly how the disease could
spread? conducted in World War II. Suggestions that the So- What
they could not have known is that bubonic viet Red Army used
tularemia (caused by the bac- plague is spread by fleas, which
collect the bacteriaterium Francisella tularensis) against invading
Nazi Yersinia pestis (the causative organism of plague) forces at
the Stalingrad front are not supported by through feeding upon
infected rats. Fleas do not the available evidence.13 German and
Allied military linger near the body once the temperature of the
scientists did pursue the manufacture of CW agents host (be it
rodent or human) cools following in very large quantities, but
these never were used in death, making it rather unlikely that the
cadavers conflict. would have done much to spread the plague. In
theIn the Korean War (19501953), Chinese offi- end, it was not the
use of projectile cadavers, butcials, during armistice
negotiations, accused the more likely the exceptionally large rat
population United States of using biological weapons. Although
around the Black Sea that led to a pandemicthere is evidence that
at least some of the commu- throughout the region (and indeed much
of Eu-nist Chinese leaders truly believed the allegations rope).
One could probably conclude, however, thatconcerning BW in Korea14,
there is no evidence that the Mongols did have the intent to spread
diseasethe U.S. military used chemical or biological among their
enemy, and at least in this respect they weapons during the
conflict.15 conducted an early form of BW. During the Cold War,
chemical agents becameeven deadlier. The United States and the
Soviet CBW in the Modern EraUnion stockpiled the German G-series
nerve agents The stunningly high rate of casualties that occurred
(sarin and soman), as well as the newer V-agents. in World War I
had much do with the machine gunPerhaps more dangerous was the
development of and rapid-fire artillery, but it also was caused
inweaponized biological agents. The United States large part by the
great number of men that wereand its allies during World War II had
pursued a brought to the battlefields. World War I marks the
rudimentary offensive and defensive BW program. emergence of gas
warfare: the use of chlorine, Later, work continued using a variety
of infectious phosgene, and other toxic chemicals. For the
mostagents, including the causative organisms of an- part, these
were used in vain attempts to achieve athrax, tularemia, and less
deadlybut highly effi- breakthrough against well-defended armies in
cientmicrobes such as Venezuelan equine en- trenches. Later,
chemical warfare agents such as sul-cephalitis. fur mustard entered
the scene when previous com- The controversy over the potential use
of CBW pounds were found to be less effective on the battle-grew
increasingly protracted during the Vietnam field. Unlike chemicals
used during the early stages War, particularly when the U.S.
military used herbi- of the conflict, mustard is not gaseous, but
an oily cides (such as Agent Orange) against Viet Cong- liquid. It
did not kill large numbers of troops, but itcontrolled areas. In a
variety of instances, riot con- caused debilitating injury by
irritating the skin, eyes, trol agents (RCAs or tear gas) were used
against the and upper airways. First used in 1917, it was re-Viet
Cong and Viet Minh regular army. Although sponsible for the most
injuries caused by chemical such forms of weaponry were not
intended to cause weapons during World War I.death, their use in an
unpopular war heightened the Japan conducted CBW against China from
1937sensitivity of the U.S. government to public percep- to 1945.
It is unknown whether the use of chemicalstions of its CBW
policies. As a consequence of Viet- against Chinese soldiers gave
the Japanese army anam and high-profile incidents involving nerve
significant advantage on the battlefield. It is certain, agents at
storage facilities in Utah and Okinawa,
24. xxviii INTRODUCTIONPresident Richard Nixon ended most U.S.
chemical tended level of death and destruction, but it caused and
biological programs in 1969. significant structural damage. Yousef
reportedly When President Nixon renounced offensive BWconsidered
the use of cyanidea toxic blood and the United States stopped the
production of bi-agentduring the 1993 bombing. However, tech-
ological weapons, the Soviet Union was only gettingnical
difficulties and other unknown factors pre- started. In 1979, a
mysterious outbreak of anthrax invented Yousef from designing such
a device.18 Sverdlovsk, Siberia (now Yekaterinberg) was sus- There
was another wake-up call to the threat of pected by Western
intelligence to have been caused WMD, this time in Tokyo, Japan,
when a guru by a BW-related accident. (After many years of de-
named Shoko Asahara instructed followers to use nials, Russia
admitted in the 1990s that the nerve agents (sarin) against his
real or perceived en- Sverdlovsk outbreak was caused by Soviet
militaryemies. In 1995, Shoko Asaharas cult (Aum Shin- work with BW
agents.) By the late 1980s, the Sovietrikyo) struck at the Tokyo
authorities by releasing a BW apparatus (Biopreparat) had assembled
the nerve agent on the subway system. The death toll worlds largest
infrastructure devoted to the devel- was 12, with thousands
injured. The end result of opment of biological weapons. The Soviet
arsenal the Tokyo subway attack was less than many experts included
the standard agents, anthrax, tularemia,expected from a WMD attack.
Still, it made a and a particularly virulent form of plague. But it
tremendous impact, not only on Japanese society had also weaponized
smallpox, placing it in a liquid but also on how governments around
the world form to be delivered by intercontinental ballistic
reevaluated the CBW terrorist threat. missiles.16 Boris Yeltsin
formally ended the program Improvised devices made by Palestinian
terror- in 1992.17 ists using toxic chemicals have been a
particular Iraq had already used large amounts of chemicalconcern
to Israel. But death and injury caused by (but not biological)
weapons against Iranian troopsshrapnel (ball bearings, nails,
bolts, etc. made into and Kurdish populations during its 19801988
con-projectiles by an exploding device) comprise the flict with
Iran. After the first Gulf War (19901991), largest portion of the
casualties inflicted by Palestin- subsequent inspections conducted
by United Na- ian suicide bombers. In 2002, however, it was re-
tions personnel revealed that Iraq had undertaken aported that
Israeli intelligence believed Palestinian serious effort to develop
chemical, biological, nu-homicide bombers to have put rat poison in
their clear, and possibly radiological weapons. In 1995, explosive
devices. According to this assessment, ter- the western world was
particularly alarmed by therorists put an anticoagulant type of
rodenticide on scope of the Iraqi BW program. Suspecting that
Iraqshrapnel. Following bombings that occurred in had maintained at
least a remnant of its WMD pro-2002, Israeli doctors made note of
excessive bleeding grams, including CBW agents and missile delivery
in certain bombing victims. This type of poison systems, the United
States led a war against Iraq be-(warfarin) acts very slowly in
mammals, making its ginning in 2003 that toppled the Iraqi regime.
Noutility and effect somewhat doubtful.19 There is caches of CBW
agents have yet been found in Iraq other evidence that Palestinian
terrorists have been by coalition forces since their occupation of
Iraq.attempting to use other types of toxic chemicals inimprovised
explosive devices.20 The Chemical and Biological Threat Today Now
that Saddam Husseins Baath Party has lost The world after September
11, 2001 has certainly control of Iraq and Libya has offered to
abandon its changed, but even before then experts such asWMD
programs, there is a lower risk of seeing Michael Osterholm,
Jessica Stern, and Jonathan CBW on the battlefield among national
armies. Tucker had worried about the prospect that terror- Syria
and North Korea still retain a significant ists might obtain and
use WMD. In 1993, Ramzichemical weapons capability. But even
skeptics of Yousef made the first attempt to destroy the World arms
control treaties such as the 1993 Chemical Trade Center. Yousef and
his cohorts might haveWeapons Convention (CWC), the 1972 Biological
hoped that the towers would fall over in dominoand Toxin Weapons
Convention (BTWC), and in- fashion, killing upwards of 250,000
people. Instead, formal arrangements such as the Australia Group
the bomb they planted killed six people and injuredmust concede
that some progress has recently been more than 1,000. The attack
failed to achieve the in-made on the nonproliferation front. It is
increas-
25. INTRODUCTION xxixingly apparent that the world community
has sus-somewhat justified) fear of radiation by the tained the
recent momentum toward the elimina-general public would no doubt
cause great tion of chemical and biological weapons, despiteanxiety
at the very least, perhaps even panic. some notable setbacks.Thus,
RDDs are sometimes referred to as Although the United States and
other developedweapons of mass disruption, as opposed to countries
seem to be headed toward complete (if WMD.4. William Patrick,
Biological Weapons Historical slow) chemical and biological
disarmament, they Overview, Chemical & Biological Warfare
continue to prepare their militaries for CBW de-Proliferation
Course (Washington, DC: Central fense in terms of materials and
training. This is pru-Intelligence Agency, Biological Warfare
Branch, dent, but one could make the argument that mod- December
1995). ern militaries are not likely to encounter chemical or 5.
Global Security Newswire, Powell Says Knowing biological weapons in
organized combat. The moreTrue Iraqi WMD Capability Might Have
likely threat is from terrorists using toxic chemicalsAffected War
Decision, 3 February 2004, or infectious agents. This is unnerving,
but terrorists http://www.nti.org. have thus far made little
effective use of these types 6. S. Abu Gheith, In the Shadow of the
Lances, of unconventional weapons. And yet, despite recentMiddle
East Research Institute, Special Dispatch gains in the war against
international terrorism, Series no. 388, 12 June 2002,
http://memri.org/. WMD will continue to pose a threat to society.
It is 7. Erhard Geissler and John Ellis van Courtland Moon, eds.,
Biological and Toxin Weapons: difficult to conceive of a worse
scenario than the ef- Research, Development and Use from the Middle
fective use of chemical or biological weapons by ter- Ages to 1945,
SIPRI Chemical & Biological rorists who act with little or no
restraint. By foster- Warfare Studies, No. 18 (Oxford, UK: Oxford
ing an understanding of CBW agents, weapons, andUniversity Press,
1999); James S. Ketchum and their potential role in conflict, it is
hoped that this Frederick R. Sidell, Incapacitating Agents, in
volume will increase awarenessand vigilanceto Frederick R. Sidell,
Ernest T. Takafuji, and defeat these threats. David R. Franz,
Textbook of Military Medicine, Part I: Warfare, Weaponry, and the
Casualty: Notes:Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological 1. U.S.
Department of Defense, Defense TechnicalWarfare (Borden Institute,
Walter Reed ArmyInformation Center (DTIC), December 2003,Medical
Center: Washington, D.C.: 1997) pp.http://www.dtic.mil/.289290. 2.
Joseph Needham, Science and Civilisation in 8. Cheng Shuiting and
Shi Zhiyuan, MilitaryChina, vol. 5, pt. 7: Military Technology: The
Technology Information Handbook: ChemicalGunpowder Epic (New York:
CambridgeWeapons, second edition (Beijing: PeoplesUniversity Press,
1986), p. 9. As a BritishLiberation Army Press, 1999; second
printingdiplomat (and to his death a committed January 2000), p.
7.Marxist), Needham was among the first to alert9. Ibid.the world
to Japans use of chemical weapons 10. Quoted in Mark Wheelis,
Biological Warfareagainst China during World War II. before 1914,
in Erhard Geissler and John Ellis 3. A radiological dispersal
device (RDD) or dirtyvan Courtland Moon, eds., Biological and
Toxinbomb employs a high explosive (such asWeapons: Research,
Development, and Use fromdynamite) to disperse radiological
materials the Middle Ages to 1945, SIPRI Chemical &(such as
cobalt60, cesium137, or Biological Warfare Studies no. 18
(Oxford:strontium90) across a large area. This wouldOxford
University Press, 1999), p. 14.not result in a massive radiological
hazard as no11. Michael R. Gilchrist, Disease & Infection in
thefission takes place. Rather, the contaminated area American
Civil War, The American Biologywould likely remain off limits to
people until itTeacher, vol. 60, no. 4, April 1998, p. 258.was
fully cleared of radiating materialsa time- 12. Hal Gold, Unit 731
Testimony. Tokyo: Yen Books,consuming and expensive process. The
1996.immediate effects of the explosion itself might of 13. Eric
Croddy and Sarka Krcalova, Tularemia,course cause death and injury,
but few casualtiesBiological Warfare (BW), and the Battle forwould
be expected from the radiological sourcesStalingrad (19421943),
Military Medicine, vol.themselves. Nonetheless, the
disproportionate (if166, no. 10, October 2001, pp. 837838.
26. xxx INTRODUCTION 14. Chen Jian, Maos China and the Cold War
18. John J. Parachini, The World Trade Center(Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, Bombers (1993), in John B.
Tucker, ed., Toxic2001), p. 110.Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of
Chemical and15. Chinas Role in the Chemical and
BiologicalBiological Weapons (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press,Disarmament
Regimes, The Nonproliferation2000), p. 201.Review, vol. 9, no. 1,
spring 2002, pp. 1647.19. Sue Shaw and Jeremy Anderson, Warfarin16.
Richard Preston, The Bioweaponeers, The New Ingestion, Evidence
Centre Report, MonashYorker, 9 March 1998, p. 63.Medical Center,
Australia, 18 March 1999.17. Ken Alibek, Biohazard (New York:
Random 20. Andrew Chang, Bombs and Bioterror, 6 AugustHouse, 1998),
p. 133. 2002, http://www.ABCnews.com.
27. Incidents of chemical or biological warfare
(CBW)Chronology: Chemical in history are of great interest, but
they are also quite problematicat least until we arrive at mod-and
Biological Weapons ern times (the postWorld War I era). We say
prob- lematic because until the twentieth century, science had not
sufficiently explained the roles of toxic chemicals or infectious
disease in order to effec- vice causing mass casualties, certainly
not all events tively utilize them in warfare. Nor had industry
would necessarily qualify. been developed in like fashion to
exploit chemistryThis will not stop us from trying to delineate a
or biology for the purpose of waging battle. When it chronology of
examples that are relevant to CBW. comes to chemical weaponry in
particular, Augustin Here are listed a selection of historical
events, with Prentiss put it quite well:an effort to describe them
by category: either chem-ical or biological weaponry.History
records numerous earlier but abortive at-tempts to utilize the
powers of chemistry for mili- Sixth Century B.C.Assyrians
reportedly usedtary ends . . ..With the exception of Greek fire
[use ergot fungus (Clavicepsof petroleum-based incendiaries, ca.
7th centurypurpurea) to poison theirC.E.], none of them produced
important resultsenemys water wellsand none permanently challenged
the supremacyof existing weapons. They are of interest to us onlyas
indicating mans eagerness to experiment with431404 B.C.Spartan
armies use sulfurany means that promise to promote his fortunesand
toxic arsenic smokein battle and his final dependence upon
technical during Peloponnesian Warknowledge to produce such means.
(Prentiss, p.xvi)Fourth Century B.C. Chinese engineers usearsenic
against Quite the same can be said of biological underground
sappers. weaponry. In either case of chemical or biological
weapons, the basic knowledge to understand the Circa 200
B.C.Officers in Hannibals army scientific disciplines behind them
was inadequateadulterate the wine of until the nineteenth century,
when significant ad- African rebels with vances were made in fields
such as organic chem- mandrake, which contains istry and
microbiology. Still, it then took the latter belladonna alkaloids
stages of the Industrial Revolution for nations to causing
hallucinations. develop the capacity for mass production of
chemicals that would play a noteworthyalbeit187 B.C.Ambraciots
(Greece) overall insignificantrole in World War Iemploy irritating
smoke (19141918). against Roman soldiers Another criterion to
consider is the scope of the purported attack. Was this a poisoning
of a few in-7th Century C.E.The Byzantine architect, dividuals, or
a whole army? Keeping in context withCallinicus (Kallinikos), a
weapon of mass destruction (WMD), that is, a de- reportedly invents
the firstxxxi
28. xxxii CHRONOLOGY liquid incendiaryGreek asphyxiating or
deleteriousFire. gases. (Mauroni, p. 81)Circa 1040 Scottish king
poisons wine 1914French troops use tear gasusing a
belladonna-likegrenades against German(sleepy nightshade) herb
positions in World War Iand gives to Norwegianenemies as
provisions22 April 1915 German military usesunder pretense
ofbarrage of chlorine gassurrender. Scots thenagainst Allied
trenches inslaughter the incapacitatedYpres, Belgium.Norwegians. 12
July 1917Germany uses mustard 1347 Mongolians lay siege toagent
against Allied troopsKaffa (in modern Ukraine)at Ypres, Belgium.and
throw corpses over citywalls to spread bubonic19161918 German
agents infect beastsplague. May have of burdenincludingcontributed
to Black Death,horses bound for use bywhich killed approximately
Allies in Europeusing50 million people throughglanders and
anthrax.the fourteenth century. 1919In midst of the Russian civil
1672 Bishop of Mnsterwar, British troops useattempted the use of
adamsiteatropine-like drug in(diphenylaminearsine, DM)grenades in
siege againstagainst Bolsheviks.city of Groningen. Attackbackfires.
1922The U.S. delegates at the Washington Arms 1767 British plot to
supply clothsConference table a proposalfrom a smallpox hospital to
abolish chemical warfare,ward to American Indianbut France
ultimately rejectstribes in hopes of spreading the treaty because
ofdisease. Unknown if this stipulations regardingstrategy was
ultimatelysubmarines.successful. 17 June 1925Geneva Protocol for
the 1855 Sir Lyon Playfair suggests Prohibition of the Use inusing
cyanide-containing War of Asphyxiating,chemicals against
RussianPoisonous or other gases,troops during Crimeanand of
BacteriologicalWar, but this tactic never Methods of Warfare
isfound approval by thesigned by nearly thirtyBritish High
Command.countries.29 July 1899 First Hague Convention 1936German
chemists synthesizesigned, prohibiting the use first nerve agents
to beof projectiles the sole object weaponized, includingof which
is the diffusion of tabun (GA).
29. CHRONOLOGY xxxiii19371942 During Sino-Japanese War, employs
riot control Japan employs chemicalagentschiefly CSin and
biological weaponscertain military operations, against Chinese
troops andcreating controversy, civilians.especially for war
critics at home and abroad. 1939Japanese attempt to poison water
with Salmonella1967 With possible support from enterica Typhi
(causative the Soviet Union, Egyptian agent in typhoid) in the
so-forces use chemical called Nomonhon Incidentweapons, including
mustard in a biological attack on agent and some kind of Soviet
troops, butorganophosphate (nerve apparently is unsuccessful.
agent) against Yemeni royalists. 1935Italian troops under Benito
Mussolini begin using25 November 1969 U.S. president Richard M.
chemical weapons (mustard Nixon renounces the agent) against
Ethiopians.offensive use of biological weapons, ordering that the
1942United States undertakesU.S. program be study of biological
warfare dismantled. (BW) agents, including defensive and
offensive10 April 1972Great Britain, the Soviet preparations.
Union, and the United States sign the Biological December 1943
German Luftwaffe attacksand Toxin Weapons Allied ships carrying
sulfurConvention. mustard in Bari, Italy, leading to more than 600
1973 Following the Yom Kippur casualties. War (fought between
Israel and Arab countries), 1956Soviet Marshal and DefenseU.S.
military analysts Minister Georgy Zhukovdiscover that Egypt
mentions the use of possessed armored various means of massvehicles
equipped with destruction, such as atomic,protection against
nuclear, thermonuclear, chemical chemical, and biological and
bacteriological (NBC) warfare. This leads weapons, stirring greatto
concern that Warsaw interest and anxiety in the Pact forces,
supported by West. (Mauroni, p. 85)the Soviet Union, were prepared
to use NBC 1962The U.S. military beginsweapons. herbicide
operations in Vietnam War, including the 19731974The Soviet Union
initiates use of Agent Orange.and establishes Biopreparat, a
civilian organization 1965As the war in Vietnam devoted to
producing escalates, the United Statesbiological warfare
agents.
30. xxxiv CHRONOLOGY26 March 1975 The Biological and Toxin
suspected links to the Weapons Convention entersterrorist
organization al- into force.Qaeda detonate 1,500pounds of explosive
in the 1979Anthrax (Bacillus anthracis) basement of the World
spores are accidentallyTrade Center in New York. released from a
biological The attack does not destroy weapons facility inthe
buildings, but kills six Sverdlovsk, Russia; at least people and
injures more 64 people died fromthan one thousand. inhalation
anthrax.Concerns arise over thepossibility that the 1983Iraq begins
using chemical terrorists laced the high warfare agents,
includingexplosives with chemical mustard, in the Iran-Iraqweapons
in order to War (19801988). increase the number ofcasualties.
JanuaryMarch 1991 A United Statesledcoalition invades Iraq in 27
June 1994Aum Shinrikyo, a newOperation Desert Storm. religious cult
in Japan, usesThe goal is to force Iraqisarin nerve agent in
ancompliance with Unitedassassination attempt onNations resolutions
calling three judges in Matsumoto,for its withdrawal from killing
seven people andKuwait and elimination of injuring over 200.its
weapons of massdestruction (WMD) 20 March 1995 Aum Shinrikyo
releasesprograms. A newly formedsarin nerve agent on theUnited
Nations SpecialTokyo subway, killing 12Commission on Iraqpeople and
injuring about(UNSCOM) searches for 1,000. Japanese policeWMD and
oversees thediscover nerve agentdestruction of knownprecursors at
the cultschemical and biological home base near Mt. Fujiweapons
arsenals andand also learn that Aumproduction facilities until
attempted to produce1998, when Iraq defiesbiological
weapons.international mandates andforces UNSCOM 19 April 1995
Timothy McVeigh detonatesinspectors to leave the a 4,000-pound
ammoniumcountry.nitrate fuel oil (ANFO)explosive device in a rented
13 January 1993 The Chemical Weapons truck, destroying the Alfred
Convention (CWC) is open P. Murrah Federal Building for signature.
in Oklahoma City,Oklahoma and killing 168 26 February 1993On 26
February 1993, a people. small group of men from the Middle East
with 29 April 1997 The CWC enters into force.