Not too long ago I did a series of posts about economic principles. I thought I would go on from there to address some military concepts and other things.
The first will be several posts explaining some basic facts about ABC (atomic biological chemical) weapons, starting with Chemical Weapons – useful only for committing war crimes and acts of genocide. It is easy to forget that Hitler had huge stocks of chemical weapons he never used in combat.
His only successful deployments were in committing acts of genocide. Saddam Hussein had significant stocks from time to time, yet as the war crimes trials in Iraq noted, the only significant use his government ever got of them was in committing acts of genocide.
The Taliban and the Russians both had access to the same chemical weapons. Neither got any significant use out of them at all. And as for the nerve gas assault on the Tokyo subway that made the news? The gas used is flammable and killed fewer people than if they had just lit the canisters on fire and thrown them into the crowd.
Part of the problem is the threshold – you usually don’t buy the weapons off the rack like you would with guns and bullets and anti-tank weapons (just visit Armada International — http://www.armada.ch — to read reviews of MBTs, coastal diesel submarines, etc. to get an idea of what is being sold “off the rack” to governments).
Thus, to begin with, you have to develop a chemical agent. Once you have one, you have to figure out how to deliver it. Both tasks take about ten years and developing delivery systems only works after you have the weapon. Then, after the twenty year lead, you have to find a way to deploy them effectively.
The rub comes in at every level. First, there are lots of poisons, but developing one that you can make, store and use takes more effort than you would expect. Then, there is deployment. Nerve gas seems pretty simple. But as the Tokyo subway incident shows, getting it to actually affect anyone is harder than it looks.
An acquaintance of mine, who specializes in ABC weapons and disarmament said she told her husband to only get her out of the shower next time when it was a “real” attack, once she saw the fatality numbers from Tokyo.
She referred to it as the pseudo-Sarin attack (it may have been nerve gas in canisters, but a real weapon would have killed thousands, not a couple score of people). Finally, there is the issue of getting the targets to sit still for the weapon’s use.
Not that there is not a huge market. The United States manufactures, uses, and sells more nerve gas products than the rest of the world combined. They are called “insecticide” and on a perfect day, against insects who don’t move out of the way, they work pretty well. But as many dictators have discovered, to use them against people you basically need to be able to line the people up in controlled areas using firearms.
By the time you are able to successfully use poison gas against them you could have already shot them hours (or days) before. Anything else in the way of targets and the wind blows your gas away, or on your own troops (the Russians, when doing maneuvers and training with fully geared and protected troops, considered 15% casualties in the practice troops a success).
The problems are severe enough that the end of Hitler’s war saw the Germans unwilling to use the stockpiled chemical agents. The benefit was never as great as the downside even when the downside was complete and crushing defeat.
Next I’ll cover Biological Weapons – good for shooting yourself in the foot and nuclear weapons – or a way to pay five times as much for half the result. Then we can move on to other topics, like why it is better to defend than attack, and other military facts. But if you have questions about WMDs, why people are so emotional about them, or why they are so useless, I’ll be glad to talk.

I’ll note that worrying about nerve case when you should be on the look for a guy with a gun means that you’ve probably wasted resources.
Now what that says about the quest to stop weapons of mass destruction is an entirely different question. There is value to stopping stupidity.
you forgot America’s use of Agent Orange in Vietnam. Surely one of the most horrendous acts of chemical warfare…
Dan, that, again, was also pretty useless, harming the user more than anything it accomplished.
Re 1:
That is often the point. Like suppressive fire, it isn’t a useful threat as much as a way to constrain mobility (and stamina) on the battlefield. It can be easily countered, but never ignored.
Genocide by chemicals is cheaper than genocide by nukes or bugs, so that’s where its most often used. I presume you’ll get into the issues of retaliation against genocide in a later post.
Maybe I should have blogged about:
Gay Military Magazine to Land at Army, AF Bases
http://www.military.com/news/article/gay-military-magazine-to-land-at-army-af-bases.html?ESRC=army-a.nl
Maybe this particular topic, while important to understanding a number of realities, may not really appeal as much as that sort of thing.
What purpose does the term WMD serve? Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are very different from each other. On the other hand, there are weapons outside these categories that are banned or have restricted use under widely adopted international treaties (examples: all uses of blinding laser weapons, and use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets, are prohibited under protocols III and IV of the Convention on CCW).
So WMD includes some but not all restricted or prohibited weapons. Furthermore, as this post argues, chemical weapons have not demonstrated a capability for mass destruction. By what standard can they be considered WMD while the incendiary weapons that devastated many cities on both sides of WWII are not? The firebombings of Tokyo in Feb-Mar 1945 had immediate effects greater than those of either of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
During the buildup to the most recent Iraq war, it was well established that Saddam Hussein had, in the past, employed chemical weapons in war against Iran, and against his own people. So he could legitimately be described as having shown a willingness to use chemical weapons. This was restated as “willingness to use WMD”, after which, by some sort of unspoken political and journalistic consensus, conversation often proceeded as if Iraqi nuclear weapons had been the topic of discussion all along. It was a very imprecise and sloppy approach, but it was useful to those arguing in favor of the war, and those responsible for maximizing news drama (Storm/Trial/Crime of the Century!) Even those who are entirely satisfied by the outcome of our national decision-making on Iraq would do well to recognize on future occasions that the three classes are not equivalent.
Does anyone think we’re better off with the term “WMD” than without it?
Badger By what standard can they be considered WMD while the incendiary weapons that devastated many cities on both sides of WWII are not? The firebombings of Tokyo in Feb-Mar 1945 had immediate effects greater than those of either of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Including the cost accounting, the atomic bombs did less damage per dollar, resulting in the army concluding that atomic weapons ought to be used only against military targets …
But that is a later post.
Bottom line, I think WMD as a category is both misleading and a mistake from a policy perspective.
Badger:
It’s a good question. WMD is a code word for a policy that predates Iraq: “a chem is a bug is a nuke” which previously meant that we could respond to either of the first two with the third rather than with either the chem or the bug — particularly after we were more willing to give up biological and chemical weapons programs than nukes. (That probably has more to do with the fact that the nuclear weapons complex produced a lot more jobs than bugs or chems did by the time disarmament got serious.)
And remember, nukes come in all sizes from “battlefield tactical” designed to destroy a Soviet Tank Division pouring through the Fulda Gap to strategic city busters.
Battlefield tactical is even smaller than division busting … and some of those strategic weapons were bigger than big.
It is interesting to me that over time, weapons have gotten smaller, not larger (e.g. from 10k battlefield nukes to .5k ones, from 20 to 100 megaton strategic nukes to 1 to 10 megaton strategic weapons).
But, back to chemical, the other thing is that WWI really seared peoples memories and thoughts.
For a long time everyone thought if they could just do chemical weapons right … until they figured out that all they are fit for is insecticide.
Not that we do not produce millions of tons of industrial chemicals more poisonous than WWI or WWII chemical weapons. We do.
And not that the press corp understands them at all …
Back in the early 80s, the U.S. moved some binary nerve gas out of Denver. I remember watching the press coverage and finally had to talk to a class mate who had been a news anchor.
First, the GIs were in ABC suits, the press guys were given gas masks that would have been good only to keep them busy while they died putting them on.
Second, while there were some “rat patrol” jeeps, (which the press really focused on), and all the soldiers carried assault rifles (err, that is the standard issue weapon), a few noticed the MBT (main battle tanks) and one or two noticed the assault helicopters in close support mode (one MBT could have swept the area clear of all the jeeps + 50 cal machine guns; one pair of helicopters could have swept the area free of MBTs) … no one paid attention to the F4s loaded to the gills with ground assault loads.
There was enough fire power in the high guard position to clear off an entire armored division. The rest was just for show. Not that anyone was likely to put an armored division on the ground in Colorado without someone noticing it on the way in.
But right down the line the press corps did not understand what was going on, from their personal safety to the structure of the security layers (the jeeps were just for show).
I learned alot talking to Bonnie then.
So, if a third world dictator is producing chemical weapons, either he intends to kill civilians with them or he doesn’t understand what he is doing and is wasting money.
Iraq would have been much more dangerous if they had put the chemical warfare funds into producing LAW (Light Anti-Tank Weapon) missiles.
BTW, a great article:
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/15/why_is_it_so_hard_to_find_a_suicide_bomber_these_days?page=full
Or why is it so hard to find a suicide bomber these days.
I probably should have blogged on national security, with 9/11 coming up, but with the link above and this one, you will have a good idea of what is really going on:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2011/09/the_efficacy_of.html
Thank you both for your replies. FireTag, when I was writing my previous comment, I had forgotten about the policy you mentioned. I suppose it’s nice to have an explanation other than political expediency (or propaganda, for the more cynical) for the origin of the term, although it doesn’t redeem the recent uses I complained of.
Stephen, I’ve been sidetracked by some family business and haven’t had time for careful reading of the articles you linked to, but while skimming the first one I was reminded of a comment I once heard on a news program that “most murderers aren’t criminals”. Logically, this suggests the speaker is ignorant of the meaning of the word “criminal”, but practically, I think it’s pretty clear what she meant: when we hear “murder”, we overlook family violence gone completely out of control in a moment of passion, or accidents involving criminal negligence, and think only of the psychologically pathological villains we see on TV, movies, and in news headlines.
I like Schneier, too. One of the distressing aspects of 9/11 for me was the widespread advocacy of measures to keep us safe without any analysis of what they would cost, what alternatives might be preferable, or how effective they would be.
Illustration: As a terrorism expert, I propose that we build a giant, coast-to-coast maximum-security prison, and we all become prisoners in it. It’s the only way to make sure all the terrorists are where they belong. It may sound harsh, but we have to understand that 9/11 changed everything. If you think it’s extreme, just wait until the terrorists detonate a nuke in one of our cities, then you’ll see what extreme really is. You’re not against it, are you? I’ve never thought of you as soft on terrorism.
Schneier is a good place to look for a more rational approach to decision-making about security risks and countermeasures.
#2) “Most Horrendous Act of Chemical Warfare” – not even close, Dan. Operation Ranch Hand was designed to defoliate jungle cover (and, less publicised, take out crops in areas controlled by the VC) along highways, rivers, and other strategic points (approaches to US firebases, for example). The various agents, of which Orange was but one (the most notorious, however) were not intended directly as anti-personnel measures. The Republic of Vietnam has yet to make any claims of effects on civilians from Agent Orange or other defoliants used in the World Court or similar venue.
#9 (nuke weapon yields)…by the ‘100 megaton’ you’re probably referring to the so-called Tsar Bomba. This was tested in it’s “clean” form (lead used instead of U-238 on the secondary tamper) to avoid unacceptable fallout over Siberia and the Soviet Arctic. Its 58 megaton yield was rather impressive, capable of inflicting immediate third-degree burns at a distance of about 60 miles from the blast centre. Yet, like the Russians’ “Tsar Kokol” and other impressive out-sized feats, the weapon was for mere propaganda. The Tu-95 bomber that dropped it had to be specially modified to carry it at all; the plane which normally has a 6,000 mile range could barely make an 800-mile trip on the available fuel; its speed was slowed to a pathetic 340 mph (the Bear’s cruising speed is normally 520) due to the out-sized bomb hold and the lead shielding necessary for crew survival. Tsar Bomba was NOT remotely a deployable weapon. The reason WHY most nukes got “smaller” (though the typical range of 50 to 400 kilotons is far more powerful than the weapons that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki) is the ability to fit them onto smaller, more accurate missiles, as well as enable MIRVing. Also, it simply did not fit either the Soviets’ strategic doctrine nor ours to inflict massive collateral damage on the civilian population and economies of the other side.
Lastly, on the OP, Hitler had himself been a gassing victim in WWI. It’s true that Hitler did veto the notion of using the new nerve gases (the Germans, under the work of Gerhard Schrader, developed Tabun (GA), Sarin (GB), and Soman (GD), but that was not due to any ethical considerations or reluctance to inflict mass casualties. Rather, Hitler didn’t believe either the Abwehr or the SD, which each independently assessed that the Allies didn’t have similar agents. Only in April 1945 as the Russians prepared to assault Berlin did Hitler finally give the order to deploy nerve gas weapons, of which several thousands rounds of artillery ordnance and a few thousand bombs were ready. Due to the confusion caused by Allied tactical bombing and the rapidity of the Soviet advance on Berlin, the Germans were unable to deploy their nerve gas weapons. This was punctuated by the Soviet Eighth Guards tank army overrunning the German Armeegruppe Mittel main supply depot at Juterborg only hours in advance of a special convoy that was to take the nerve gas shells to the Ninth Army’s positions in the Halbe forest. The outcome of the war wouldn’t have likely change, but the Soviet’s would’ve been bloodied further in their push on Berlin.
Douglas,
uh huh…yeah, they were ignorant to the fact that Agent Orange would do so much damage to internal human organs….3 million or so Vietnamese dead as a result of Agent Orange…clearly insignificant…
#16 – “3 million or so Vietnamese dead as a result of Agent Orange”…
Oh, bruuttherrr…..Dan, what an utterly LUDICROUS assertion! Did you pull that figure out of your hiney? Or what Greenpeace or PETA rally were you at where the speaker pulled that citation out of his or her hiney? Shoot, I KNEW that liberalism was, as one Michael Weiner Sr (aka Savage) asserts, a MENTAL DISEASE, but thanks for punctuating that assertion! My brother, I pray for your “recovery”…
At least have the intellectual honesty to do your homework and/or give credible citations…the truth, though not easy to stomach, sheds some light. Please look up even the Wikipedia article on Agent Orange (which, BTW, isn’t necessarily the most credible source, but it should put to rest the credibility of your baseless assertions). I include the section on “effects on the Vietnamese People” for readers convenience:
The Vietnam Red Cross reported as many as 3 million Vietnamese people have been affected by Agent Orange, including at least 150,000 children born with birth defects. According to Vietnamese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 4.8 million Vietnamese people were exposed to Agent Orange, resulting in 400,000 people being killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects.
Children in the areas where Agent Orange was used have been affected and have multiple health problems, including cleft palate, mental disabilities, hernias, and extra fingers and toes.[36] In the 1970s, high levels of dioxin were found in the breast milk of South Vietnamese women, and in the blood of U.S. soldiers who had served in Vietnam. The most affected zones are the mountainous area along Truong Son (Long Mountains) and the border between Vietnam and Cambodia. The affected residents are living in substandard conditions with many genetic diseases.
Vietnamese babies, deformed and stillborn after prenatal dioxin exposure from Agent Orange
About 28 of the former US military bases in Vietnam where the herbicides were stored and loaded onto airplanes may still have high level of dioxins in the soil, posing a health threat to the surrounding communities. Extensive testing for dioxin contamination has been conducted at the former US airbases in Da Nang, Phu Cat and Bien Hoa. Some of the soil and sediment on the bases have extremely high levels of dioxin requiring remediation. The Da Nang Airbase has dioxin contamination up to 350 times higher than international recommendations for action. The contaminated soil and sediment continue to affect the citizens of Vietnam, poisoning their food chain and causing illnesses, serious skin diseases and a variety of cancers in the lungs, larynx, and prostate.
Unfortuately I can’t get the heart-rendering pics of Major Phang and the still born deformed babies into this post. Though I would dispute the actual casualty figures (note the disparate figures, particularly in attributable birth defects, between the Vietnamese Gov’t and its respective Red Cross) in no way do I dismiss US responsibility. Let’s face it…our military heartlessly deployed this agent upon a people we were supposedly saving from “Common-Ism” and hypothetically “winning the hearts and minds” thereof. In particular, I feel that the executives of Monsanto Corp. and the general officers in the US Army Chemical Corps, and perhaps the late Gen Westmoreland, have a great deal to answer for in allowing our troops to themselves be exposed (and little proper precautions exercised therein), never mind the harm wreaked upon the Vietnamese people and their ecosystem, when the effects were either known or reasonably suspected! No mention of any official US response to Vietnam’s assertions is in the Wikipedia article, and likely never will be, because to this day, our Government has utterly stonewalled any attempts by our own veterans exposed to Agent Orange to collect compensation. So, unfortunately, though likely the actual casualty rates are likely far lower than the Rep. of Vietnam’s assertions, we’ll likely never have the truth in our lifetimes.
And anyone wonder why I cringe when a bureaucrat sez, “I’m with the Gov’t, and I’m here to help…”
Now, if it’s just WMD in general that we’re talking about, which is the first (and only) nation to use a nuclear weapon in anger?? Food for thought.
I realize how bad agent orange was for veterans serving in Viet Nam. However, my va doctor says my health problems are identical to those who served in Viet Nam and I wasn’t there for even one day. My VA doctor suggest I was exposed to Agent Orange either in one of the training centers or in Germany. I weas in Ft. Benning GA and Fort Knox Ky and then Germany. Does anyone have any information for me. Thanks
Billy