Time to talk about ABC weapons?

Great Debates
1

I thought about posting this query in General Questions, but I think its implications will quickly turn it into a Great Debate.

What official policy, if any, does the US have regarding atomic, biological, and chemical weapons?

I had gotten the impression that an attack on us by some foreign state using any one of these three types of weapons of mass destruction would prompt swift retaliation in the form of our own ABC weapon, but not necessarily the same one. That is, a chemical or biological attack could bring a retaliatory nuclear strike.

I’m not sure, though, whether the US ever communicated this as an official doctrine, or only as a behind the scenes warning (to Saddam, for example). Which is it?

And to open the GD, do you think such a strike would be (1) justified and (2) advisable if a foreign state is found to be responsible for the recent anthrax attacks? (I recognize that one point does not necessarily carry along the other.)

As for my position:

I think that if the anthrax is traced back to the government of (say) Iraq, I think that crosses over whatever line there might still be between an act of terrorism and an explicit act of war. After all, this looks more and more like a concerted effort to destroy America’s top political leaders, using “weaponized” anthrax.

I think that President Bush should very patiently and carefully consider the evidence in full consultation with Congressional leaders, perhaps over the course of several months, and if they agree that the source is indeed Iraq, then the President should order that Iraq’s entire government be taken out with an extremely small and extremely well-targeted nuclear weapon. It’s Wrath of God time here, and I think we need to send a message that will resonate a thousand years: do NOT fuck with ABC weapons, and especially not against the United States.

2

That’s the first time I’ve seen it abreviated ABC. I thought the long-used term has always been NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical).

(Second thought is TV chanels, for some reason… :slight_smile: )

3

Maybe I should actually address the question, too… Sorry :slight_smile:

Pretty much, I think the US stance on NBC weapons/warfare is that it’s a matter of last resort, or imediate need. Chemical warfare would probably the most readily used, in a battlefield scenario, but I think current US doctrine is to use chemical warfare only in a retaliatory measure to other NBC warfare attacks, and only durring war (And more specifically, a NATO/warshaw-pact scenario). Otherwise, use of NBC warfare would be reserved mainly as a threat against an opponent using the same upon the US, with the promise of an equal retaliatory strike (Most notable example being MAD, Mutually Assured Destruction, where two supperpowers use the threat of complete nuclear annihilation to deter the use of any nuclear attack).

Um… Somehow, I don’t see the point of an “extremely well-targeted nuclear weapon,” especially when the target is in the middle of a city. Chucking a 10KT-yield bomb in the general area is “well-targeted” enough where nukes are concerned (Barring nuke-silo busting attack scenarios, but even then the circle of error was what, 60 meters?), the city is gone or crippled. So are the US relations with every single country even remotely tied to the middle east…

4

I’ve also usually seen the abbreviation as NBC. Atomic weapons are not the same exact same thing as nuclear weapons, and I think that nuclear weapons (rather than atomic) comprise most if not all of our current arsenal of those kinds of weapons. In addition, WMD (weapons of mass destruction) is sometimes used as an abbreviation to cover the broad category.

I have no special knowledge of nuclear weapon policy, but I think Phoenix Dragon summarized it accurately. However, chemical and biological weapon policy I do know a little about. I will note that I do not have a security clearance so all info provided is public, and there may be classified exceptions to what I say here (or maybe not!). Anyway, we are under obligation to not produce or use chemical or biological weapons, and we do not have a policy of using them under any circumstances.

The USA signed (01/13/93) and ratified (04/25/97) the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. Below is part of the text of the CWC, outlining the requirements made of any state that ratifies the convention.

*ARTICLE I
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS

  1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:
    (a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;
    (b) To use chemical weapons;
    © To engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons;
    (d) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
  2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy chemical weapons it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
  3. Each State Party undertakes to destroy all chemical weapons it abandoned on the territory of another State Party, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
  4. Each State Party undertakes to destroy any chemical weapons production facilities it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
  5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.*

I believe the deadline for completion of the elimination of our chemical weapons stockpile is 2007, but I also believe the dealine will be extended. You can find a great deal of information at http://www.cwc.org and http://www.opcw.org.

The US is also a signator and party to the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC). See http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/bwc1.html for mor information. The BWC actually predates the CWC and contains similar language and obligations. Hopefully, this clarifies the official US stance on Chemical and Biological weapons.

If you read the lists of countries that are signatories and parties to these two treaties, you’ll see that Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan are all listed under the BWC. Iran is party to the CWC. Afghanistan has signed but not ratified the CWC. Iraq, Syria, N. Korea, Libya, Egypt, and Somalia are among the nations that have not signed the CWC.

Ok, standard disclaimer: I do not speak for anyone but myself in this post. I believe all information to be correct, but make no guarantees as to accuracy or entertainment value. Etc, and so forth.

5

NBC weapons are pretty much indiscriminate and disproportionate to their immediate tactical aims (terror and the ‘oh fuck’ factor being the ‘useful’ part of their disproportionate destructiveness).

Why should the Iraqi civilians suffer for their government’s actions? Sure, in war there are casulaties among those more or less regarded as non-combatants, but you can seek to minimise those to a certain degree. But inflicting damage disproportionate to the aims of the act (if the act is to remove the government) or wilfully employing weapons of mass destruction in full awareness of the likely large number of civilian casulaties, in order to terrify other nations into submission, sounds might like terrorism by a number of definitions.

6

Am I the only one that sees the difference between 3 people dead, and the millions that will die from a nuclear attack?

7

No, you’re not the only one who distinguishes between 3 deaths and a million (although it would more likely be in the tens of thousands rather than a million - po-tay-to/po-tah-toe)

Still, we would have no option but to remove any government that attempted such an act. Whether this is through a single nuclear strike (which would persuade them that we are serious about deterring WMD’s if nothing else) or a demand for unconditional surrender followed by a protracted air and ground campaign and occupation for an indefinite period.

I would guess that a single nuclear strike would probably be less bloody in the short term, although a full up war might be more effective in the long run. (Although whether a postwar occupation could liberalize/democratize Iraq (or any similar country) as effectively as Germany/Japan is a whole 'nother question)