WEAPONS OF MASS DISTORTION

The latest issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (May/June 2003) faces the issue of what should be termed a "Weapon of Mass Destruction", in a article by Phillip Morrison and Kosta Tsipis, entitled Rightful names. The text of the article is not yet posted on the BAS website, but I would like to quote it here. I believe this is an important issue, particularly within the context of the abolition movement.

I agree with Morrison and Tsipis that chemical weapons should not be categorized along with nuclear weapons as WMD; I also agree that most forms of biological weapons should also be removed from the WMD category; however, I am not quite so sure about biological weapons which are highly contagious . . .respiratory borne viruses with high mortality rates could certainly act as WMD under the right circumstances (i.e., in a densely populated nation which lacked the medical and technical resources needed to isolate and contain the disease(s), or in a post-war environment where medical and technical abilities had been destroyed).

The introduction to Rightful Names reads:

      "The term "Weapons of Mass Destruction" (WMD) was long reserved for nuclear explosives, which release upon detonation a million times more energy per weight than conventional explosives like TNT.

More recently, though, and especially now in reference to Iraq, WMD has been expanded to include chemical and biological weapons. This is decidedly misleading terminology, because the three types of weapons are fundamentally differenct in terms of lethality, in the area they cover and over time; in the availability of measures that can protect against them; and in their potential tactical, strategic, and terrorist uses."

Morrison and Tsipis go on to describe the tactical and strategic uses of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Biological weapons are obviously not useful on the battlefield. The authors admit that biological weapons "can cause hundreds of thousands of casualties in societies with poor public health services", but consider them to be more weapons of terror in developed countries. They state, "Chemical weapons have been used in battlefield situations, but they are not effective against protected troops. Their lethal effects are limited, and they disperse rather quickly, especially in windy conditions. Nuclear weapons, in contrast, have instantaneous lethal effects against troops and equipment, which cannot be protected from the heat, overpressure, electromagentic pulse, and prompt radioactivity . . . .A much larger number of people will eventually die from trauma, burn, and radiation sickness . . . the effects of nuclear weapons cannot be countered, and their lethal radiius is orders of magnitude larger than that of a chemical weapon."

Morrison and Tsipis point out that even large quantities of chemical weapons are likely to cause thousands of deaths, as opposed to hundreds of thousands which would be killed by a strategic nuclear weapon used against an urban target. Furthermore, the lingering effects of radiation would prevent the habitation of the devastated areas for many years. I suppose that one might argue that anthrax spores could accomplish the permanent evacuation of large areas of real estate, but by any true comparison it is clear that at present, nuclear weapons are vastly more lethal in a variety of ways than are chemical or biological weapons.

I think it is important to avoid confusing the issues by diluting the terminology. The term WMD should be reserved for nuclear weapons. So do Morrison and Tsipis, who conclude:

       "And if neither the U.N. inspectors, nor the US. investigators who will surely comb the Iraqi countryside after the war comes to an end, fail to find nuclear weapons in Iraq, one must conclude that Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction -- even if it is found to have had chemical and/or biological weapons."

 

Home     Disclaimer/Fair Use