DOCSLIB.ORG

The History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: an American

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: an American History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: An American Perspective Chapter 2 HISTORY OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE: AN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVE JEFFERY K. SMART, M.A.* INTRODUCTION PRE–WORLD WAR I DEVELOPMENTS WORLD WAR I THE 1920S: THE LEAN YEARS THE 1930S: THE GROWING THREAT OF CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE THE 1940S: WORLD WAR II AND THE NUCLEAR AGE THE 1950S: HEYDAY OF THE CHEMICAL CORPS THE 1960S: DECADE OF TURMOIL THE 1970S: THE NEAR END OF THE CHEMICAL CORPS THE 1980S: THE RETURN OF THE CHEMICAL CORPS THE 1990S: THE THREAT MATERIALIZES SUMMARY *Command Historian, U.S. Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 21010-5423 9 Medical Aspects of Chemical and Biological Warfare INTRODUCTION Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines or biological warfare went virtually unnoticed by the term “chemical warfare,” first used in 1917, the U.S. Army. By the end of World War I, the situ- as “tactical warfare using incendiary mixtures, ation had drastically changed. Chemical warfare smokes, or irritant, burning, poisonous, or asphyx- had been used against and by American soldiers iating gases.” A working definition of a chem- on the battlefield. Biological warfare had been used ical agent is “a chemical which is intended for covertly on several fronts. In an effort to determine use in military operations to kill, seriously injure, what had gone wrong with their planning and train- or incapacitate man because of its physiological ing, U.S. Army officers prepared a history of chemi- effects. Excluded from consideration are riot con- cal and biological warfare. To their surprise, they trol agents, chemical herbicides and smoke found numerous documented cases of chemical and and flame materials.”1(p1-1) Chemical agents were biological agents having been used or proposed to usually divided into five categories: nerve agents, influence the outcome of a battle or campaign. In vesicants, choking agents, blood agents, and addition, they discovered that the technology to incapacitants. protect against chemical and biological agents al- Webster’s dictionary likewise defines “biological ready existed, and, in some cases, was superior to warfare” as “warfare involving the use of living the equipment used during the war. In hindsight, organisms (as disease germs) or their toxic prod- these officers realized that the army had failed to ucts against men, animals, or plants.” A working recognize and prepare for these two already exist- definition of a biological agent is “a microorgan- ing types of warfare. ism (or a toxin derived from it) which causes dis- [This chapter focuses primarily on the develop- ease in man, plants or animals or causes deteriora- ment of chemical and biological weapons and coun- tion of material.”2(p1-1) Biological warfare agents termeasures to them, thus setting the stage for were normally divided into three categories: anti- Chapter 3, Historical Aspects of Medical Defense personnel, antianimal, and antiplant. Against Chemical Warfare, which concentrates on Prior to World War I, the United States had little medical aspects of chemical warfare. To avoid ex- knowledge about the potential of chemical and bio- cessive duplication of material, protective equip- logical warfare. Particularly in terms of preparing ment of the modern era is illustrated in Chapter 16, soldiers for future wars, the possibility of chemical Chemical Defense Equipment.—Eds.] PRE–WORLD WAR I DEVELOPMENTS The chemical agents first used in combat during China as early as 1122 BC. Yellow fever was first World War I were, for the most part, not recent dis- described in the 1600s. Carlos Finlay, a Cuban coveries. Most were 18th- and 19th-century discov- biologist, identified mosquitoes as the primary eries. For example, Carl Scheele, a Swedish chem- carrier of yellow fever in 1881, while Walter Reed, ist, was credited with the discovery of chlorine in a U.S. Army physician, proved the agent to be a vi- 1774. He also determined the properties and com- rus. Casimir-Joseph Davaine isolated the causative position of hydrogen cyanide in 1782. Comte organism of anthrax in 1863, followed by Robert Claude Louis Berthollet, a French chemist, synthe- Koch, a German scientist, who obtained a pure cul- sized cyanogen chloride in 1802. Sir Humphry ture of anthrax in 1876. Koch also discovered the Davy, a British chemist, synthesized phosgene in causative agent for cholera in 1883. Rocky Moun- 1812. Dichloroethylsulfide (commonly known as tain spotted fever was first recognized in 1873; mustard agent) was synthesized in 1822, again in Howard T. Ricketts, an American pathologist, 1854, and finally fully identified by Victor Meyer discovered the causative agent in 1907. Ricketts in 1886. John Stenhouse, a Scotch chemist and in- also identified the causative organism of typhus in ventor, synthesized chloropicrin in 1848.3 1909. F. Loffler and W. Schutz identified glanders Many biological agents were naturally occurring in 1882. Sir David Bruce, a British pathologist, dis- diseases thousands of years old. Others were gen- covered the causative organism of brucellosis (it erally discovered or recognized in the 19th and 20th was named after him) in 1887. Ricin toxin was iden- centuries. For example, plague was recognized tified in 1889. Tularemia was first described in about 3,000 years ago. Smallpox was known in Tulare County, California (after which it was 10 History of Chemical and Biological Warfare: An American Perspective named), in 1911, and the causative agent was iden- If the shell should explode over the heads of the tified the next year.3 enemy, the gas would, by its great specific gravity, rapidly fall to the ground: the men could not dodge it, and their first intimation of its presence would Early Chemical Weaponization Proposals and Usage be by its inhalation, which would most effectually disqualify every man for service that was within There are numerous examples of chemical weap- the circle of its influence; rendering the disarming ons used or proposed during the course of a cam- and capturing of them as certain as though both paign or battle. The Chinese used arsenical smokes their legs were broken.5(p27) as early as 1000 BC. Solon of Athens put hellebore roots in the drinking water of Kirrha in 600 BC. In As to the moral question of using chemical weap- 429 and 424 BC, the Spartans and their allies used ons, he echoed the sentiments of Lyon Playfair a noxious smoke and flame against Athenian-allied decade earlier: cities during the Peloponnesian War. About 200 BC, the Carthaginians used Mandrake root left in wine As to the moral question involved in its introduc- to sedate the enemy. The Chinese designed stink tion, I have, after watching the progress of events during the last eight months with reference to it, bombs of poisonous smoke and shrapnel, along arrived at the somewhat paradoxical conclusion, with a chemical mortar that fired cast-iron stink that its introduction would very much lessen the shells. Toxic smoke projectiles were designed and sanguinary character of the battlefield, and at the used during the Thirty Years War. Leonardo da Vinci same time render conflicts more decisive in their proposed a powder of sulfide of arsenic and verdi- results.5(p33) gris in the 15th century.3 During the Crimean War, there were several pro- Doughty’s plan was apparently never acted posals to initiate chemical warfare to assist the Al- on, as it was probably presented to Brigadier Gen- lies, particularly to solve the stalemate during the eral James W. Ripley, Chief of Ordnance, who siege of Sevastopol. In 1854, Lyon Playfair, a Brit- was described as being congenitally immune to ish chemist, proposed a cacodyl cyanide artillery new ideas.5 A less-practical concept, proposed the shell for use primarily against enemy ships. The same year by Joseph Lott, was to fill a hand-pumped British Ordnance Department rejected the proposal fire engine with chloroform to spray on enemy as “bad a mode of warfare as poisoning the wells troops.6 of the enemy.”4(p22) Playfair’s response outlined a The 1864 siege of Petersburg, Virginia, generated different concept, which was used to justify chemi- several chemical warfare proposals. Forrest Shep- cal warfare into the next century: herd proposed mixing hydrochloric and sulfuric acids to create a toxic cloud to defeat the Confeder- 5 There was no sense in this objection. It is consid- ates defending Petersburg. Lieutenant Colonel ered a legitimate mode of warfare to fill shells with William W. Blackford, a Confederate engineer, de- molten metal which scatters among the enemy, and signed a sulfur cartridge for use as a counter- produced the most frightful modes of death. Why tunnelling device.7 The Confederates also consid- a poisonous vapor which would kill men without ered using Chinese stink bombs against the Union suffering is to be considered illegitimate warfare troops. Elsewhere, the same year, Union Army Cap- is incomprehensible. War is destruction, and the tain E. C. Boynton proposed using a cacodyl glass more destructive it can be made with the least suf- 5 fering the sooner will be ended that barbarous grenade for ship-to-ship fighting. Other than pos- method of protecting national rights. No doubt in sibly Blackford’s cartridge, none of the proposals time chemistry will be used to lessen the suffering were used on the battlefield. of combatants, and even of criminals condemned Two wars at the turn of the century also saw lim- to death.4(pp22–23) ited use of chemical weapons. During the Boer War, British troops fired picric acid–filled shells, al- There were other proposals for chemical warfare though to little effect.8 During the Russo–Japanese during the Crimean War, but none were approved. War, which was closely observed by those who During the American Civil War, John Doughty, a would plan World War I, Japanese soldiers threw New York City school teacher, was one of the first arsenal rag torches into Russian trenches.3 to propose the use of chlorine as a chemical warfare In 1887, the Germans apparently considered us- agent.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Critical Evaluation of Proven Chemical Weapon Destruction Technologies
    Pure Appl. Chem., Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 187–316, 2002. © 2002 IUPAC INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PURE AND APPLIED CHEMISTRY ORGANIC AND BIOMOLECULAR CHEMISTRY DIVISION IUPAC COMMITTEE ON CHEMICAL WEAPON DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES* WORKING PARTY ON EVALUATION OF CHEMICAL WEAPON DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES** CRITICAL EVALUATION OF PROVEN CHEMICAL WEAPON DESTRUCTION TECHNOLOGIES (IUPAC Technical Report) Prepared for publication by GRAHAM S. PEARSON1,‡ AND RICHARD S. MAGEE2 1Department of Peace Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, West Yorkshire BD7 1DP, UK 2Carmagen Engineering, Inc., 4 West Main Street, Rockaway, NJ 07866, USA *Membership of the IUPAC Committee is: Chairman: Joseph F. Burnett; Members: Wataru Ando (Japan), Irina P. Beletskaya (Russia), Hongmei Deng (China), H. Dupont Durst (USA), Daniel Froment (France), Ralph Leslie (Australia), Ronald G. Manley (UK), Blaine C. McKusick (USA), Marian M. Mikolajczyk (Poland), Giorgio Modena (Italy), Walter Mulbry (USA), Graham S. Pearson (UK), Kurt Schaffner (Germany). **Membership of the Working Group was as follows: Chairman: Graham S. Pearson (UK); Members: Richard S. Magee (USA), Herbert de Bisschop (Belgium). The Working Group wishes to acknowledge the contributions made by the following, although the conclusions and contents of the Technical Report remain the responsibility of the Working Group: Joseph F. Bunnett (USA), Charles Baronian (USA), Ron G. Manley (OPCW), Georgio Modena (Italy), G. P. Moss (UK), George W. Parshall (USA), Julian Perry Robinson (UK), and Volker Starrock (Germany). ‡Corresponding author Republication or reproduction of this report or its storage and/or dissemination by electronic means is permitted without the need for formal IUPAC permission on condition that an acknowledgment, with full reference to the source, along with use of the copyright symbol ©, the name IUPAC, and the year of publication, are prominently visible.
    [Show full text]
  • Nerve Agent - Lntellipedia Page 1 Of9 Doc ID : 6637155 (U) Nerve Agent
    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of MILLIONS of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com Nerve Agent - lntellipedia Page 1 of9 Doc ID : 6637155 (U) Nerve Agent UNCLASSIFIED From lntellipedia Nerve Agents (also known as nerve gases, though these chemicals are liquid at room temperature) are a class of phosphorus-containing organic chemicals (organophosphates) that disrupt the mechanism by which nerves transfer messages to organs. The disruption is caused by blocking acetylcholinesterase, an enzyme that normally relaxes the activity of acetylcholine, a neurotransmitter. ...--------- --- -·---- - --- -·-- --- --- Contents • 1 Overview • 2 Biological Effects • 2.1 Mechanism of Action • 2.2 Antidotes • 3 Classes • 3.1 G-Series • 3.2 V-Series • 3.3 Novichok Agents • 3.4 Insecticides • 4 History • 4.1 The Discovery ofNerve Agents • 4.2 The Nazi Mass Production ofTabun • 4.3 Nerve Agents in Nazi Germany • 4.4 The Secret Gets Out • 4.5 Since World War II • 4.6 Ocean Disposal of Chemical Weapons • 5 Popular Culture • 6 References and External Links --------------- ----·-- - Overview As chemical weapons, they are classified as weapons of mass destruction by the United Nations according to UN Resolution 687, and their production and stockpiling was outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993; the Chemical Weapons Convention officially took effect on April 291997. Poisoning by a nerve agent leads to contraction of pupils, profuse salivation, convulsions, involuntary urination and defecation, and eventual death by asphyxiation as control is lost over respiratory muscles.
    [Show full text]
  • Modern Chemical Weapons
    Modern Chemical Weapons Modern Chemical Weapons causes serious diseases like cancer and serious birth defects in newly born Large scale chemical weapons were children. first used in World War One and have been used ever since. About 100 years ago Modern warfare has developed significantly since the early 20th century Early chemical weapons being used but the use of toxic chemicals to kill around a hundred years ago included: and badly injure is still very much in use tear gas, chlorine gas, mustard gas today. There have been reports of and phosgene gas. Since then, some chemical weapon attacks in Syria of the same chemicals have been during 2016. Chemical weapons have used in more modern warfare, but also been the choice of terrorists other new chemical weapons have because they are not very expensive also been developed. and need very little specialist knowledge to use them. These Chlorine gas (Cl2) weapons can cause a lot of causalities as well as fatalities, but also There have been reports of many spread panic and fear. chlorine gas attacks in Syria since 2013. It is a yellow-green gas which has a very distinctive smell like bleach. However, it does not last very long and therefore it is sometimes very difficult to prove it has been used during an attack. Victims would feel irritation of the eyes, nose, throat and lungs when they inhale it in large enough quantities. In even larger quantities it can cause the death of a person by suffocation. Mustard gas (C4H8Cl2S) There are reports by the United Nations (UN) of terrorist groups using Mustard Agent Orange (mixture of gas during chemical attacks in Syria.
    [Show full text]
  • Epidemiological Findings of Major Chemical Attacks in the Syrian War Are Consistent with Civilian Targeting: a Short Report Jose M
    Rodriguez-Llanes et al. Conflict and Health (2018) 12:16 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-018-0150-4 SHORTREPORT Open Access Epidemiological findings of major chemical attacks in the Syrian war are consistent with civilian targeting: a short report Jose M. Rodriguez-Llanes1, Debarati Guha-Sapir2 , Benjamin-Samuel Schlüter2 and Madelyn Hsiao-Rei Hicks3* Abstract Evidence of use of toxic gas chemical weapons in the Syrian war has been reported by governmental and non-governmental international organizations since the war started in March 2011. To date, the profiles of victims of the largest chemical attacks in Syria remain unknown. In this study, we used descriptive epidemiological analysis to describe demographic characteristics of victims of the largest chemical weapons attacks in the Syrian war. We analysed conflict-related, direct deaths from chemical weapons recorded in non-government-controlled areas by the Violation Documentation Center, occurring from March 18, 2011 to April 10, 2017, with complete information on the victim’s date and place of death, cause and demographic group. ‘Major’ chemical weapons events were defined as events causing ten or more direct deaths. As of April 10, 2017, a total of 1206 direct deaths meeting inclusion criteria were recorded in the dataset from all chemical weapons attacks regardless of size. Five major chemical weapons attacks caused 1084 of these documented deaths. Civilians comprised the majority (n = 1058, 97.6%) of direct deaths from major chemical weapons attacks in Syria and combatants comprised a minority of 2.4% (n = 26). In the first three major chemical weapons attacks, which occurred in 2013, children comprised 13%–14% of direct deaths, ranging in numbers from 2 deaths among 14 to 117 deaths among 923.
    [Show full text]
  • Health Aspects of Biological and Chemical Weapons
    [cover] WHO guidance SECOND EDITION WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION GENEVA DRAFT MAY 2003 [inside cover] PUBLIC HEALTH RESPONSE TO BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL WEAPONS DRAFT MAY 2003 [Title page] WHO guidance SECOND EDITION Second edition of Health aspects of chemical and biological weapons: report of a WHO Group of Consultants, Geneva, World Health Organization, 1970 WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION GENEVA 2003 DRAFT MAY 2003 [Copyright, CIP data and ISBN/verso] WHO Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data ISBN xxxxx First edition, 1970 Second edition, 2003 © World Health Organization 1970, 2003 All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World Health Organization concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The mention of specific companies or of certain manufacturers’ products does not imply that they are endorsed or recommended by the World Health Organization in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned. Errors and omissions excepted, the names of proprietary products are distinguished by initial capital letters. The World Health Organization does not warrant that the information contained in this publication is complete and correct and shall not be liable for any damages incurred as a result of its use. Publications of the World Health Organization can be obtained from Marketing and Dissemination, World Health Organization, 20 Avenue Appia, 1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland (tel: +41 22 791 2476; fax: +41 22 791 4857; email: [email protected]).
    [Show full text]
  • Countering the Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria: Options for Supporting International Norms and Institutions
    EU Non-Proliferation and Disarmament Consortium NON-PROLIFERATION AND DISARMAMENT PAPERS Promoting the European network of independent non-proliferation and disarmament think tanks No. 63 June 2019 COUNTERING THE USE OF CHEMICAL WEAPONS IN SYRIA: OPTIONS FOR SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL NORMS AND INSTITUTIONS una becker-jakob* INTRODUCTION SUMMARY For more than six years the people of Syria and the Chemical weapons are banned by international law. international community have had to face the fact Nonetheless, there have been numerous alleged and proven that chemical weapons have become part of the chemical attacks during the Syrian civil war. The international community has found ways to address this weapons arsenal in the Syrian civil war. By using these problem, but it has not managed to exclude the possibility weapons, those responsible—the Syrian Government of further chemical attacks once and for all. Nor has it included—have violated one of the most robust taboos created accountability for the perpetrators. The in international humanitarian law. In recent years, establishment in 2018 of the Investigation and the international community, the United Nations Identification Team within the Organisation for the and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is a step in the Weapons (OPCW) have found creative ways to address right direction, but it came at the price of increased this situation, but no strategy has so far succeeded in polarization among member states. To maintain the truly redressing
    [Show full text]
  • Francisella Tularensis Blue-Grey Phase Variation Involves Structural
    Francisella tularensis blue-grey phase variation involves structural modifications of lipopolysaccharide O-antigen, core and lipid A and affects intramacrophage survival and vaccine efficacy THESIS Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Shilpa Soni Graduate Program in Microbiology The Ohio State University 2010 Master's Examination Committee: John Gunn, Ph.D. Advisor Mark Wewers, M.D. Robert Munson, Ph.D. Copyright by Shilpa Soni 2010 Abstract Francisella tularensis is a CDC Category A biological agent and a potential bioterrorist threat. There is no licensed vaccine against tularemia in the United States. A long- standing issue with potential Francisella vaccines is strain phase variation to a grey form that lacks protective capability in animal models. Comparisons of the parental strain (LVS) and a grey variant (LVSG) have identified lipopolysaccharide (LPS) alterations as a primary change. The LPS of the F. tularensis variant strain gains reactivity to F. novicida anti-LPS antibodies, suggesting structural alterations to the O-antigen. However, biochemical and structural analysis of the F. tularensis LVSG and LVS LPS demonstrated that LVSG has less O-antigen but no major O-antigen structural alterations. Additionally, LVSG possesses structural differences in both the core and lipid A regions, the latter being decreased galactosamine modification. Recent work has identified two genes important in adding galactosamine (flmF2 and flmK) to the lipid A. Quantitative real-time PCR showed reduced transcripts of both of these genes in the grey variant when compared to LVS. Loss of flmF2 or flmK caused less frequent phase conversion but did not alter intramacrophage survival or colony morphology.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Bonds, Chemical Compounds, and Chemical Weapons
    Chemical Bonds, Chemical Compounds, and Chemical Weapons http://preparatorychemistry.com/Bishop_Book_atoms_5.pdf Elements, Compounds, and Mixtures • Element: A substance that cannot be chemically converted into simpler substances; a substance in which all of the atoms have the same number of protons and therefore the same chemical characteristics. • Compound: A substance that contains two or more elements, the atoms of these elements always combining in the same whole-number ratio. • Mixture: A sample of matter that contains two or more pure substances (elements and compounds) and has variable composition. Classification of Matter Elements and Compounds Exhaust – a Mixture Covalent Bond Formation Covalent Bond • A link between atoms due to the sharing of two electrons. This bond forms between atoms of two nonmetallic elements. – If the electrons are shared equally, there is a even distribution of the negative charge for the electrons in the bond, so there is no partial charges on the atoms. The bond is called a nonpolar covalent bond. – If one atom in the bond attracts electrons more than the other atom, the electron negative charge shifts to that atom giving it a partial negative charge. The other atom loses negative charge giving it a partial positive charge. The bond is called a polar covalent bond. Polar Covalent Bond Ionic Bond • The attraction between cation and anion. • Atoms of nonmetallic elements often attract electrons so much more strongly than atoms of metallic elements that one or more electrons are transferred from the metallic atom (forming a positively charged particle or cation), to the nonmetallic atom (forming a negatively charged particle or anion).
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. Disposal of Chemical Weapons in the Ocean: Background and Issues for Congress
    Order Code RL33432 U.S. Disposal of Chemical Weapons in the Ocean: Background and Issues for Congress Updated January 3, 2007 David M. Bearden Analyst in Environmental Policy Resources, Science, and Industry Division U.S. Disposal of Chemical Weapons in the Ocean: Background and Issues for Congress Summary The U.S. Armed Forces disposed of chemical weapons in the ocean from World War I through 1970. At that time, it was thought that the vastness of ocean waters would absorb chemical agents that may leak from these weapons. However, public concerns about human health and environmental risks, and the economic effects of potential damage to marine resources, led to a statutory prohibition on the disposal of chemical weapons in the ocean in 1972. For many years, there was little attention to weapons that had been dumped offshore prior to this prohibition. However, the U.S. Army completed a report in 2001 indicating that the past disposal of chemical weapons in the ocean had been more common and widespread geographically than previously acknowledged. The Army cataloged 74 instances of disposal through 1970, including 32 instances off U.S. shores and 42 instances off foreign shores. The disclosure of these records has renewed public concern about lingering risks from chemical weapons still in the ocean today. The risk of exposure to chemical weapons dumped in the ocean depends on many factors, such as the extent to which chemical agents may have leaked into seawater and been diluted or degraded over time. Public health advocates have questioned whether contaminated seawater may contribute to certain symptoms among coastal populations, and environmental advocates have questioned whether leaked chemical agents may have affected fish stocks and other marine life.
    [Show full text]
  • VX Binary (VX2) – Developed by the US • Novichok Agent
    THE FOUR LIKELY BINARY AGENTS Working paper Charles P. Blair Last Updated, January 2013 Binary sarin (GB2) – developed by the U.S. Binary soman (GD2) VX binary (VX2) – developed by the U.S Novichok agent (“New Comer) –developed by the Soviets Additionally, Eric Croddy has written that VNSAs may use “binarytype designs” in an attack…with simple designs most likely using common chemical ingredients (e . g. , c ya n id e . ) ” 1 Aum is an example o f t h is . 1. Binary sarin . With binary sarin (also referred to as “GB binary” and “GB2”) a forward container has methylphosphonic difluoride (DF), while a second, rear container has an isopropyl alcohol and isopropylamine solution (OPA). The DF resides in the munition prior to use. The OPA is added just prior to launch. After deployment of the weapon, the two canisters rupture, “the isopropyl amine binds to the hydrogen fluoride generated during the chemical reaction, and the chemical mixture produces GB.”2 Experts note that, “The final product of the weapon is of the same chemical structure as the original nerve agent. The term binary refers only to the storage and deployment method used, not to the chemical structure of the substance.”3 With regard to how long it takes the DF and OPA to mix before binary sarin is extant, Eric Croddy notes that, “as in any chemical reaction, a certain amount of time is required for the [binary] reaction to run its course. In the case of GB binary, this required about seven seconds.”4 2. Binary soman (also referred to as “GD binary” and “GD2”).
    [Show full text]
  • Website Chlorine Pwdr Sugar Water Phosgene Tear
    Phosgene 2 Gases 44P make Hydrogen website Tear Gas,2 KCN 2, make somoom Chemical Agents Chlorine pwdr Ricin CHLORINE,2 Sugar water Phosgene Phosgene, also known as carbonic dichloride, colorless, extremely toxic gas of formula COCl2 with an unpleasant, irritating odor at high concentrations. It is prepared by the reaction of carbon monoxide with chlorine in the presence of a catalyst. Phosgene is poisonous in concentrations above 50 parts per million of air, and if inhaled, it causes severe and often fatal edema of the lungs within a few hours. It was used in World War I as a poison gas but today is used principally as an intermediate in the synthesis of organic compounds, including carbonic esters, isocyanates, polyurethanes, and dyes. Phosgene is 3.43 times heavier than air; the gas melts at -118° C (-180.4° F) and boils at 8.3° C (46.9° F). Look here Chemical war section. Tear Gas I INTRODUCTION Tear Gas, chemical substance that produces a primary physical effect of stinging or tearing eyes. Tear gas also irritates other mucous membranes and causes choking and coughing. People exposed to higher concentrations may experience burning, itching, or even blistering skin. As a form of riot control, police often use clouds of tear gas to break up crowds of people. A rifle-fired grenade or a thrown canister usually delivers tear gas, but smaller hand- held spray devices also exist. Tear gas may also be used to force the surrender of fugitives hiding in a building. Dogs and horses are relatively unaffected by tear gas, so they can add to the riot-control effect of the gas.
    [Show full text]
  • Rudderless: the Chemical Weapons Convention at 1 ½
    Rudderless: The Chemical Weapons Convention At 1 ½ Amy E. Smithson Report No. 25 September 1998 Copyright© 1998 11 Dupont Circle, NW Ninth Floor Washington, DC 20036 phone 202.223.5956 fax 202.238.9604 http://www.stimson.org email [email protected] Rudderless: The Chemical Weapons Convention At 1 1/2 Amy E. Smithson INTRODUCTION On the 29th of April 1997, the majority of the world’s nations joined to activate an arms control and nonproliferation accord that will gradually compel the elimination of one of the most abhorred classes of weapons of all times. Previously, the international community had fallen short of the mark in efforts to try to abolish poison gas, despite the opprobrium following its widespread use in World War I.1 The new Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) extends the no use-prohibitions of the 1925 Geneva Protocol2 to outlaw the development, acquisition, production, transfer, and stockpiling of chemical weapons as well. The CWC requires the destruction of chemical weapons production facilities and arsenals over a ten-year period, and countries will witness the shrinking numbers of poison gas factories and munitions. A less tangible function of the CWC, but one that may turn out to be equally valued over the long term is that the CWC will help redefine how states assure their national security. The CWC requires nations to declare activities that were previously considered state secrets and private business information. The treaty authorizes routine and challenge inspections to monitor compliance with its prohibitions. Instead of building large caches of arms, the CWC’s verification processes give governments reason to be confident that managed transparency—a limited waiver of state sovereignty—can enhance national and international security.
    [Show full text]