Click on the Section You want to see.
I. Thesis
II. Introduction
a. What is BW?
b. A History of BW
III. Types of BW Agents
a. Bacterial
b. Viral
IV. Regulations
a. International
b. United States
V. Concerns
a. Bioterrorism
b . Stockpiling for Defensive Research
VI. Ethics and Morality
VII. Conclusion
VIII. Bibliography
I. THESIS [top]
Biological weapons and all other weapons of mass destruction should be disarmed
and disposed of properly.
II. INTRODUCTION [top]
Throughout time biological agents have been used for good and bad. The end of
the 20th century marked the high point of controversy in biological warfare.
The war on Iraq and desert storm being major parts of this controversy. The
only good outcome with biological warfare would be complete disarmament and
cooperation with all countries across the globe. The only reason that biological
weapons are being researched and made is to find a way to eliminate as many
opposing troops as possible without placing your own troops in danger.
What is BW? [top]
A working definition of Biological Warfare (BW) is needed to begin the discussion.
“Biological warfare is the intentional use of living organisms or their
toxic products to cause death, disability or damage in man, animals or plants”
(Cookson & Nottingham, 1969, 259). This definition
is the only definition I found throughout my research. I will be referring to
this definition throughout this paper. Biological weapons are weapons that use
these products of organisms.
A History of BW [top]
Biological warfare has existed for many centuries. It has been reported that
in the sixth century B.C., the Assyrians poisoned enemy wells with rye ergot
(a fungus disease), and the Solon used the purgative herb hellebore during the
siege of Krissa (Miller, 1998). BW back then was very
primitive compared to today’s battlefield. Advancements in science have
led to a much more complex battlefield in the 20th century (Hersh,
1968, 3). Since the first recorded use of BW, many more battles have been
won using biological weapons. The Mongols catapulted corpses contaminated with
plague over city walls, the Russians used plague infested corpses, and during
the French and Indian wars the English gave blankets to the Indians infected
with smallpox (CNS, 2001, USAMRIID, 1995).
The most recent attack was done with anthrax on the US soil. Letters were mailed
to NBC News and the New York Post containing anthrax (Anthrax
Attack). Many government laws and regulations about mail were introduced
after this incident.
The one problem that many historians have with recording BW attacks is that
it is hard to prove who is guilty of letting the agent go in a population (Cookson
& Nottingham, 1969, 296). In the 20th century there were many allegations
of BW use. All parties involved in the allegations denied the accusations (Cookson
& Nottingham, 1969, 296). I believe this was due to the Geneva Convention
of 1925. During this convention, the Geneva Protocol was written and stated
that the use of any type of biological agent was prohibited (Bureau
of Arms Control, 2002). Many of the countries involved in BW accusations
during the 20th century had signed and ratified the document, meaning none of
the accused should have been using the weapons to begin with (Bureau
of Arms Control, 2002). This is just a brief history of all the happenings
through the centuries. For a more detailed history see the reference for the
Center for Nonproliferation Studies.
Starting in the 1970s, the proliferation of biological weapons had decreased.
The Geneva Protocol became very important. Also in the 1970s, the biological
weapons convention was started and put into international protocol (CNS,
2001). The enforcement of this document involved all that had signed and
ratified the document. All countries were held liable to keep other countries
accountable (BTWC, 1972). There have been few problems since.
III. TYPES OF BW [top]
There are many types of BW agents that are being researched and used. I will
talk about the 2 that would be most likely used in an attack against humans.
Those are bacterial agents and viral agents. There are other types that can
be used. The micro-organisms, vectors or carriers of disease, toxins derived
from living organisms, pests of domestic and commercial plants and animals,
and the anti-crop agents are the five classes that the US Army has identified
(Cookson & Nottingham, 1969, 260). What makes these
microorganisms so dangerous is the fact that they are living and are able to
reproduce after released (Malek, 1968).
When these agents were first introduced, they were made in solution (Hersh,
1968, 68). This made it difficult to spread the agents because the concentrations
were not high enough to cause major epidemics. Research was conducted and scientists
found a way to store these agents in a dry form causing the concentrations that
could be put into bombs or carried by rocket (Hersh, 1968,
69). This led to a new battlefront that could be used to wipeout opposing
forces and eventually the drying of many bacterial and viral agents became the
method of choice.
Bacterial [top]
The bacterial agents list contains the most microorganisms, the organisms range
from anthrax and plague to brucellosis and Q fever (Malek,
1968, Spencer & Scardaville, 2001). The process
of picking the agent is based on availability and lethality (Malek, 1968). Many
of the agents that are included in this classification are very hard to weaponize
and disseminate. These bacteria need a highly sophisticated process to be a
good option for attack. Although that is true, anthrax bacteria are the most
likely to be used. Anthrax is the most highly obtainable bacterial agent that
can be found (Spencer & Scardaville, 2001). It is
found anywhere that livestock are raised in the soil (Spencer
& Scardaville, 2001). It is highly lethal once the symptoms show and
infection occurs through skin contact or inhalation (Spencer
& Scardaville, 2001). Recently a vaccine has been developed reducing
the risk of a serious epidemic.
Viral [top]
The are fewer viral agents than bacterial agents. Viruses with the most potential
for BW are Ebola, smallpox, and Venezuelan equine encephalitis (Spencer
& Scardaville, 2001). Ebola is a very unlikely agent to be used. The
necessity of highly sophisticated laboratories reduces this virus as very unlikely
to be used because of the high infection rate and almost certain death of anyone
who might handle this virus (Spencer & Scardaville, 2001).
Smallpox is the most likely virus to be used as an agent (Spencer
& Scardaville, 2001). The reason that this would be a likely agent is
the fact that no one under the age of 30 has been vaccinated for this virus
(Spencer & Scardaville, 2001). The virus has been
considered to be wiped out and no longer a threat to society. There are only
2 places that even hold the pathogen, the US and Russia (Spencer
& Scardaville, 2001).
IV. REGULATIONS [top]
After the First World War, there was great pressure for the nonproliferation
and disarmament of gaseous weapons. Biological weapons were not highly used
and no specific attacks were recorded. The result of all the casualties led
to a protocol that was written specifically for asphyxiating, poisonous or other
gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare (Hersh, 1968,
7). This led to other international protocols and conventions.
International [top]
The first step made to ban the use of bacteriological weapons was made with
the Geneva Protocol. This protocol was written in 1925 at the Geneva Convention
(Hersh, 1968, 6). This protocol was largely effective between
World War I and World War II. Thirty-two nations signed and ratified the protocol
(Hersh, 1968, 7). This protocol was only violated once
before WW2 (Hersh, 1968, 7). During WW2, the allies that
had signed the agreement did not authorize the use of gases or bacteriological
agents (Hersh, 1968, 8). The Nazi-Germans actually developed
some new gases that were even more deadly than the ones initially banned by
the Geneva Protocol. These gases were nerve gases (Hersh, 1968,
7). They also developed a gas that was used for the mass murder of the concentration
camp prisoners during this war (Hersh, 1968, 8). Many years
would pass before another international level intervention would happen. It
came after Vietnam and the use of the weapons there that a new convention started.
The Biological Weapons Convention was started in 1972 (BTWC,
1972). Since the convention started 162 states have signed and 144 of these
states have ratified the convention (BTWC, 1972). The great
success of this convention highlighted the need for another convention to be
started. The organization for prohibition of chemical weapons was started in
1997 (OPCW, 2005). Hopefully this convention will have the
same affect.
United States [top]
The United States was the frontrunner in getting an international agreement
in order to ban the use of gases and bacteriological methods in warfare. This
led to the Geneva Protocol in 1925 (Hersh, 1968, 7). Even
though the United States was advocating for it the most, they did not ratify
the protocol. They only signed the agreement saying they agree that it is a
good idea (Hersh, 1968, 7). It wasn’t until 1975
that the US ratified the Geneva Protocol (CNS, 2001). President
Nixon added some policies about BW before the US signed the Geneva Convention.
In 1969 and 1970, Nixon stated that the US will not use, stockpile, develop,
or procure biological weapons (Alexander, 1971). The
actual meaning of what Nixon said was that the US would not use biological weapons
and research only for defensive purposes (Alexander, 1971).
Those statements were made in 1969 and some researchers found a loop hole in
the policy. Nixon later stated in 1970 that toxins created from bacteriological
agents but are not living are under the same ban as bacteriological agents (Alexander,
1971).
Since the signing and ratification of the Geneva Protocol and the Biological
Weapons Convention (BCW), many laws, policies, and regulations have been introduced
by the US. In a CRS report for Congress, many of these new and old sanctions
are discussed. These sanctions deal with international funding of other countries.
They state different situations in which the United States can stop funding
other countries if they are in breech of any of the international agreements
or protocols on biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons (Renneck,
2001). Most of these sanctions came about in the 1990s. Some of them were
even put into effect before the US even ratified these agreements. This seems
a little hypocritical to me. Many other nations are also starting to make the
same type of sanctions that the US is making. This helps the nonproliferation
and demilitarization of countries that may have these types of weapons.
V. CONCERNS [top]
Although many countries have signed and ratified these agreements, that doesn’t
mean that they are adhering to them. This is cause for major concern for the
globe, not just our homeland. These agreements and protocols do not prohibit
research for defensive purposes. This means that the countries in agreement
or not in agreement are still allowed to have these very dangerous biological
weapons. The research is supposed to be for antidotes and forms of combating
the actual agent itself. In order to study this, you need to have a minimal
stockpile of the agent on hand that can be used for testing. Where there are
stockpiles, there are chances of bioterrorism and the possibility of weapons.
With no international security team, these countries could easily be building
weapons under our noses.
Bioterrorism [top]
The recent attacks on our nation with anthrax and other nations with biological
agents, has caused the topic of bioterrorism to be of top priority. Many people
are fearful that our nation could be attacked by a release of anthrax, but not
excluding other weapons. The threat of bioterrorism is much higher today than
it would have been 50 years ago. The sciences of the 20th century have allowed
us to make, distribute, and stockpile many diseases and biological agents that
would not have been possible 50 years ago. These biological agents are becoming
more readily available to any person or group. With this access the possibilities
of an attack on any country have gone up substantially.
Stockpiling [top]
There are some major concerns when it comes to the stockpiling of these biological
agents. With lots of biological agents lying around, it is possible that a leak,
spill, or contamination of the local population could happen. The other scenario
is that of theft by a terrorist cell group. A majority of the US biological
research occurs on college campuses (Langer, 1968). Some
of the schools on the list include Boston, California, Indiana, and Oklahoma
(Langer, 1968). This list is from the time period of 1961-68
(Langer, 1968). There were over 50 colleges and universities
that were involved in biological weapons research (Langer,
1968). I was unable to find any information on which schools are doing the
research or have done research in the past few years.
The former Soviet Union had one such outbreak in April of 1979 (CNS,
2001). This release caused the illness of 94 civilians, killing at least
64, plus the death of multiple livestock (Red Lies, 2004).
This is the only documented severe case of this type. That does not mean that
it hasn’t happened before where it wasn’t documented and covered
up. Thousands may have already died due to a release of an agent that was not
recognized by physicians.
This accidental release of the anthrax was not the only reason for concern in
this case. As of 1979, the former Soviet Union had signed and ratified both
the Geneva Protocol and the BWC (Bureau of Arms Control, 2002).
This was a major scare during the Cold War. The US and Russia were in a race
for nuclear arms proliferation and while the US was worrying about nuclear weapons,
the Soviet Union was in its own race for biological weapons proliferation (Red
Lies, 2004). The Soviet Union had spent the previous two decades preparing
anthrax and smallpox weapons of mass destruction (Red Lies,
2004). The cause of death for all of these people was concealed by the government
in order to keep the operation secret (Red Lies, 2004).
However, this did not stop the world from noticing the news from this part of
the globe. It wasn’t until Boris Yeltsin took the presidency that the
government would acknowledge any involvement in the situation. This happened
in 1992, almost 25 years later (Red Lies, 2004). This
case goes to show that just because someone signs a document it doesn’t
mean that they are going to adhere. It is just a way to defer attention for
a period of time so they may continue their evil works.
VI. ETHICS AND MORALITY [top]
What all this information boils down to is one question. Is it necessary? We
have had biological weapons laying around for the greater of 50 or more years
and we have yet to employ them in battle. International agreements have been
made against their use in warfare. Yet we keep stockpiling these agents with
the excuse that someone else may attack us with this type of weapon. The US
has claimed that it is expanding its defensive program. Bush has even requested
that the budget for bioterrorism be increased from $1.4 billion to $5.9 billion
(Miller, 2002). Hopefully we are truly going towards
expanding our defensive program and not secretly covering an offensive program.
The questions that need to be answered here are, do we destroy all of our biological
research and risk being attacked or do we stockpile and spend billions of dollars
a year on research? It would be very nice to destroy all weapons and have no
threat of being attacked by another country.
Unless everyone disarms, there is a need for research. There are other countries
that are openly keeping an offensive program (Shuey, 2001).
In order for the US to be safe the research is needed and necessary. There are
at least two countries that have a BW program, Iraq and Egypt (Shuey,
2001). There are also others that are suspected and those that are likely
to have a BW program (Shuey, 2001). The countries with
these programs are of bigger threat than the terrorist groups (Shuey,
2001). The terrorist groups would have difficulty obtaining, storing, and
disseminating a large scale attack (Shuey, 2001). On the
other side, the nations that were listed above have the means and ability to
cause a massive epidemic whether by plane or missile (Shuey,
2001). A defensive program is necessary for the safety of the nation. The
needs now are that of regulation and laws on what can and can’t be done
with these agents being used for testing.
Biological weapons have been around for a long time. They have been used openly
and secretly, from assassinations to mass eliminations. Not once have I ever
heard of someone releasing anthrax and the next year turned out a baby boom
year. Instead what you would hear is that millions have died or millions are
ailing from a terrorist attack with anthrax or smallpox. These weapons are made
for the second scenario of massive death and destruction. This should raise
many questions of ethics and morality.
VII. CONCLUSION [top]
I wrote this paper with the intent to educate myself and others in the field
of biological weapons and warfare. It may not be in depth but I recommend following
up with the resources I used if you are interested in learning more. I certainly
learned a lot about this topic that I had no idea about before starting. My
hope is that this paper proved my point or at least raised questions in your
head about biological weapons. The history shows that these weapons have never
been used for anything but death and destruction. We have come to agreements
that these types of weapons are prohibited from warfare. While this is true,
many countries have not adhered to their promise creating the need for a defensive
research program. I think that the only solution is complete agreement and disarmament
of all aspects of BW research and programs.
Anthrax Attack. Retrieved on November 3, 2005, from http://biblia.com/terrorism/anthrax.htm.
The Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention Website (BTWC, 1972). Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction. Retrieved on November 3, 2005, from http://www.opbw.org/convention/documents/btwctext.pdf.
Bureau of Arms Control (2002). “Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare.” Retrieved on November 3, 2005, from http://www.state.gov/t/ac/trt/4784.htm.
Cookson, J., & Nottingham, J. (1969). A Survey of Chemical and Biological Warfare. New York, NY : Monthly Review Press.
Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS, 2001). “Chronology of State Use and Biological and Chemical Weapons Control.” Retrieved on October 4, 2005, from http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/pastuse.htm.
Hersh, S. (1968). Chemical and Biological Warfare. New York, NY : Bobbs-Merrill Company.
Langer, E. (1968). United States. Rose, S. (Ed.), CBW: Chemical and Biological Warfare (pp. 119-129). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Malek, I. (1968). Biological weapons. Rose, S. (Ed.), CBW: Chemical and Biological Warfare (pp. 48-61). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Miller, J. “Biological Weapons, Literally Older Than Methuselah.” New York Times, B p7 Sep. 19, 1998.
Miller, J. (2002). “Bush to Request Big Spending
Push on Bioterrorism.” New York Times. February 4, 2002.
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW,
2005). Retrieved on November 3, 2005, from http://www.opcw.org/.
Red Lies. The National Online. February 18, 2004. Retrieved November 3, 2005, from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/bioweapons/redlies.html.
Renneck, D. “98-116: Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Missile Proliferation Sanctions: Selected Current Law.” CRS Report for Congress. January 17, 2001.
Shuey, Robert. “Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Weapons and Missiles: The Current Situation and Trends.” CRS Report for Congress. August 10, 2001.
Spencer, J. and Scardaville, M. “Understanding the Bioterrorist Threat: Facts and Figures.” The Heritage Foundation Backgrounder. October, 11, 2001.
United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID,
1995), "Medical Defense Against Biological Warfare Agents Course: History
of Biological Warfare" Encyclopedia of Bioethics, 2545.