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.