chemical warfare

chemical warfare Wilfred Owen, veteran and poet of World War I, understood chemical warfare. Dulce et decorum est, Owen's view of gassing by chlorine, sums it up:Gas! Gas! Quick, boys — An ecstasy of fumbling
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time,
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound'ring like a man in fire or lime…


Chemical warfare has evolved since then: from the asphyxiating chlorine; through the irritant, skin penetrating and bone marrow damaging mustard gas; to the acutely toxic skin-and inhalation-hazard nerve poisons — by-products of research on insecticidal organophosphate chemicals in the late 1930s. En route, and since, thousands of chemicals have been screened for their use in war, but the inventory of established chemical warfare agents remains at about twenty.

In parallel with the search for yet more effective agents, research has continued on antidotes and other means of protection. The modern infantryman has protective suits, gas masks, sensitive detectors, and injectable antidotes (but only to nerve poisons). Vehicles with air filtration units, and mobile hospitals with decontamination facilities, offer protection for other service units, the main objective being to avoid contact with the chemical agent.

Antidotes and hospitalization are no guarantees of a successful recovery following exposure to tabun, sarin, soman, or VX — nerve agents all, and capable at low concentrations of disrupting nerve transmission and the ability to breathe. Nerve agents can kill within minutes after inhalation, and in less than an hour following skin contact. For all chemical warfare agents the degree of injury and subsequent disability depends on the quantity of chemical inhaled or in contact with the skin.

Wilfred Owen captured the terror of chemical warfare, and his fumblers made up a sizeable proportion of the 1.3 million casualties it caused in World War I. Others fell victim because they had either no gas masks, or faulty masks, and latterly, inadequate skin protection when Germany introduced mustard gas in 1917. Some 27 000 servicemen died from the effects of chemical agents in World War I. This ratio of deaths to injuries, lower than with conventional munitions, led some to argue that chemical warfare was a more humane way of fighting.

Civilian casualties, caused by chemical agents being blown beyond the battlefields of northern France and Belgium border villages, numbered roughly 1000. Most civilians survived their ordeal, with some 110–120 deaths being recorded. Approximately 4000 factory workers in Britain, France, and the US were injured during the manufacture of chemical munitions between 1916–18. Iranian and Kurdish victims of Iraq's use of mustard gas and nerve agents in the 1980s were less fortunate. Tens of thousands, largely civilians, were injured, but a high percentage died, some 5000 in the Kurdish city of Halabja alone, according to estimates.

Unlike soldiers, civilians have relatively little protection against chemical warfare agents. The training provided to soldiers equips them, in part, for fighting in a chemical environment. Much of their training is to prevent any fumbling and to overcome the sense of isolation in their protective suits.

Remaining upwind, above ground level, and in a sealed room with an adequate air supply, will provide protection for civilians — if they have time to prepare. Iraq's Kurds had no warning, and the extensive casualties caused by chemical agents caused great panic and led to millions fleeing their homes to seek shelter in neighbouring countries.

The plight of the Kurds galvanized discussions on a chemical disarmament regime. Although most countries are signatories to the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which outlaws (first) use of chemical and biological warfare, this treaty does not forbid retaliation, nor does it have any policing powers. The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) remedies these deficiencies. Following ratification in the parliaments of 65 countries, the convention became international law in April 1997. Well over 120 countries have now ratified the Convention and agree to neither use, make, nor encourage others to produce chemical weapons. As proof of their good intentions all ratifiers have also agreed to inspection, at short notice, of any site, be it military base, chemical manufacturing plant, or area where agents may have been used. Adoption of the Convention requires countries such as the US, with some 30 000 tonnes of chemical agents, and Russia, with some 40 000 tonnes, to destroy all stocks within 10 years. The bill for Russia to comply with these provisions is an estimated $4 billion.

Details about stockpiles, sites, inventories of chemicals, and manufacturing locations are transmitted by governments to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), based in the Hague. The OPCW oversees the CWC and organizes inspections.

Only two other countries, India and Iraq, are definitely known to have stocks of usable chemical munitions. India has ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, Iraq has not. Following her defeat in the second Gulf War in 1991, Iraq has agreed to a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspecting sites and destroying munitions and chemical and biological warfare manufacturing facilities. UNSCOM never completed this programme. Iraq expelled the UNSCOM team following bombing of the country by the US and the UK in 1999. Negotiations are continuing between Iraq and the UN about a new type of inspection regime.

A number of other countries, including Britain, France, and Italy, have declared that they possess some chemical warfare munitions, many of which were made before 1945. Small stocks of these munitions may be buried on disused military bases, and finding them will probably be more a chance event than the result of a specific investigation. In consequence, countries possessing stocks of these older, largely unusable munitions will have more than 10 years in which to destroy them.

Iraq brought chemical warfare up to date. The most extensive use, prior to this, of chemicals deliberately intended to injure or kill humans occurred between 1915–18. In the intervening years chemical agents have been used in other wars. Italy used mustard gas against Ethiopian forces in 1935–6. Japan is alleged to have used mustard gas against Chinese forces in 1938. In 1967, Britain claimed that an asphyxiating chemical agent had been used by Egypt against Yemeni troops.

Chemical warfare, however, is not only about lethal agents. Many countries adhere to the view that the use of chemical defoliants by the US in the Vietnam War both to remove the forest canopy and to destroy food crops was also chemical warfare. The US disagrees with this interpretation. Defoliants used in Vietnam caused a rapid leaf drop, increasing visibility in large swathes of inland and coastal forests. Destruction of forests and food crops caused considerable hardship in the locality. Regrettably, the concentrations of the chemicals used resulted in the loss of countless trees, and forests being replaced by grassland. The destruction is still evident today.

Riot control agents have also been used in warfare to force combatants to leave entrenched positions, exposing them to enemy fire. Use of riot-control agents in this context also constitutes chemical warfare. The CWC acknowledges this, and the use of riot control agents in war is now forbidden.

A disarmament treaty to prevent chemical warfare is now in place. Negotiations to secure it have taken almost 20 years. More countries are expected to ratify the CWC. Persuading all nations to do so and to follow the new rules is the ultimate goal.

Alastair Hay

See also poisons; war and the body.