An International Red Line: The Origin of Chemical Weapons as Taboo Weapons of War (original) (raw)
Related papers
One hundred and one years after a milestone: Modern chemical weapons and World War I
While chemical weapons have been used since the beginning of armed struggles, either for their flammable or toxic properties, it was only during World War I when what is known as ''modern'' chemical warfare began. July 28 marks the one hundred and one anniversary of the beginning of what is also known as ''The Great War''. This conflict created enormous consequences for society at the time, marking a before and after in the history of mankind, as well as being the genesis of modern
Chemical Weaponry and Warfare in The Great War
Chemical Weaponry and Warfare in The Great War. ππ³πͺπ¨πͺπ―π’πππΊ π±π°π΄π΅π¦π₯ π°π― π΅π©π¦ ππ―π΄π΅πͺπ΅πΆπ΅π¦ π°π§ ππ―π΅π¦π³π―π’π΅πͺπ°π―π’π ππ¦ππ’π΅πͺπ°π―π΄, 2019
World War I has been called the Β«The Chemist's WarΒ»; not only for the extend of the use of the chemical weapons in the war, but also for the complicity of the scientific and engineering efforts to create and select the most appropriate chemical agents for military use, to improve the procedures of their production, and to discover the most lethal and effective techniques for their usage and deployment in warfare. The involvement of chemical weaponry was deemed necessary at the first stages of war, given the devastating effects that the trench warfare had induced on the troops, where battles lasted months and hundreds of thousands of casualties had to be suffered for a warring side to advance merely several kilometers. While the effect that the chemical weapons had for the termination of the trench warfare is debatable, they constituted the terror of the soldiers at the trenches 1 .
Terror weapons: the British experience of gas in the First World War
Chemical weapons accounted for only 1 per cent of the 750,000 British troops killed in the First World War and yet caused disproportionate casualties (estimated at 180,100). The considerable investment in the development of new toxins and methods of delivery was designed to maintain the elements of surprise and uncertainty as these accentuated their psychological effect. Soldiers were continually challenged on the battlefield by combinations of different types of agent designed to undermine their confidence in respirators, disorientate them, and erode their morale. At first, army doctors practised defensive medicine, invaliding their patients for protracted periods to the UK or base hospitals. By 1917, progressive study of the physical and psychological effects of different types of toxin allowed physicians to design new management strategies. Borrowing ideas from shell shock, specialist units were set up closer to the front line and medical officers taught to identify crucial points in the course of illness to accelerate recovery times and forestall the accretion of psychosomatic symptoms.
One Hundred Years of Chemical Warfare: Research, Deployment, Consequences, 2017
Allied political and military leaders have frequently been credited both with considerable foresight and with strategic and moral leadership for avoiding chemical warfare during the Second World War. Scholars have not, however, fully acknowledged how close Allied forces came to launching a full-scale chemical onslaught in various theatres of war. The paper offers a thorough reconstruction of Allied chemical warfare planning which takes a close look at the development of Britain's chemical weapons program since the First World War. The findings suggest that no "lack of preparedness," as it existed in the initial stages of the conflict in 1939/1940, would have deterred the Allies from launching chemical warfare if the military situation had required it. Allied forces were planning to launch retaliatory chemical warfare ever since they had been attacked with chlorine gas in 1915. Just War theorists at first opposed the use of this new weapon and campaigned for an internationally enforced legal ban. The paper argues, however, that postwar military and political exigencies forced the advocates of the Just War tradition to construct new arguments and principles which would make this type of war morally and militarily acceptable. The paper explores the ways in which military strategists, scientists, and government officials attempted to justify the development, possession, and use of chemical weapons, and contextualizes Britain's delicate balancing act between deterrence and disarmament in the interwar period.
Towards a historical context of chemical weapons
Pharmaceutics and Pharmacology Research, 2021
Chemical weapons remain a worrisome aspect worldwide. Knowing its history is essential to avoid repeating it and to be able to leave our planet free of this scourge. The threat of its resurgence is something tangible and real against which we must all fight, each one from his own trench.
WAR OF NERVES: Chemical Warfare from World War I to Al-Qaeda
Military review, 2007
the authors also address medical contributions, including Walter Reed's efforts to suppress typhoid and yellow fever, and scientific contributions, notably J. Robert Oppenheimer's work on the atomic bomb. For the most part the authors avoid controversy. In a statement of breathtaking simplicity, they note that a uranium bomb "destroyed Hiroshima, a plutonium bomb Nagasaki, and Japan surrendered" (p. 104). No mention is made of opposition to or criticism of the use of atomic bombs, whether by scientists before August 1945 or by postwar critics citing Cold War imperatives. Perhaps the authors believe enough ink has been spilled on this controversy, but some reference to the intense debate surrounding the Fiftieth Anniversary exhibit at the Smithsonian would have highlighted the ironies, tragedies, and emotions generated by modern weaponry and war. Sidebars that highlighted salient issues in the historiography of technology and the U.S. military would have enhanced the value of this book. Notably absent is any critical discussion of biological and chemical weaponry. Meanwhile, the select bibliography fails to list works by Lewis Mumford (perhaps the most incisive critic of the U.S. military's "megamachine") or relevant articles from the Journal of Military History, Technology and Culture, and similar scholarly journals. While a book that takes time to define terms like "bullet" and "bayonet" is obviously intended for the uninitiated, one might also expect guidance with respect to more advanced themes. Controversial themes and issues such as interservice rivalries, political and economic pressures, and President Eisenhower's warning about the military-industrial complex are not developed fully. Curiously, although published in 2006, the timeline of this book ends in 1999 with air attacks in Kosovo. Similarly, the last chapter ends with a rushed account of the Gulf War of 1991 and the concept of a "Revolution in Military Affairs." One might imagine a different (and timelier), post 9-11 conclusion, perhaps stressing the difficulties of asymmetrical warfare and the unpredictable and often surprisingly labile nature of technology (e.g., "civilian" cell phones used as triggers for roadside bombs). The American military's enormous investment in high-tech weaponry in the 1980s and 1990s was geared primarily to conventional conflicts against like-minded opponents; the wisdom of this investment is now being tested in low-intensity conflicts and messy urban settings like Iraq. Here the authors could have built on their discussion of the Vietnam War, where they note that American technical virtuosity did not produce victory, forcing the military to reconsider its emphasis on superior technology as uniquely efficacious. Nevertheless, the strength of this volume is that it provides solid historical underpinnings for more advanced discussions about, and research into, these and similar subjects.
Chemical Weapons in Armed Conflicts
The use of chemical agents as a weapon of war has a history that extends back over two centuries. The first instance of a large-scale deployment of chlorine gas, for instance, occurred in April 1915 when German troops attacked Ypres (France Diplomacy, 2022). Moreover, the two world wars saw the greatest proliferation of chemical weapons on the battlefields of Europe, in Nazi concentration camps or in Asia (Office for Disarmament Affairs, 2023). Despite the current regulatory framework, specifically the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits the use of chemical weapons as well as their production and acquisition, these continue to be used today and not solely by states but also by non-state actors, as evidenced by the 1995 sarin terrorist attack on the Tokyo Underground (France Diplomacy, 2022). The evolution in the nature of armed conflicts, and in particular the emergence of asymmetrical conflicts, has led to a resurgence in the use of chemical weapons (Lion, 2009) and recent reports indicate that the threat of their use has intensified, particularly in the context of the ongoing armed conflicts (France Diplomacy, 2022; Amnesty International, 2023; HRW, 2023). This paper examines the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons and the most recent instances of chemical weapon use. Firstly, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the EUβs support to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons is examined. After, the articles of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which explicitly identify the use of poison, poisoned weapons, prohibited gases, liquids, materials, or devices as war crimes are analysed, as well as the mens rea element required to prosecute the perpetrators of said crimes. Finally, the paper will evaluate several instances of the international community's response to the use of chemical weapons in armed conflicts, with a consequent violation of the CWC, such as in Iraq, Syria and Ukraine.