Rights and Wrongs of Chemical and Biological Warfare

Introduction

The intended purpose of biological and chemical weapons is to fundamentally endanger lives. However, biological agents are ineffective as military weapons, but seen as a global threat to the human species. Chemical weapons have limited uses so they are considered weapons of terror more so than a military weapon albeit still harmful. The thought of such weapons ever possibly being deployed induces fear, uncertainty in everyday life and large scale panic. Weapons with such mentally and physically destructive consequences, one would unquestionably turn down the idea of such weapons and want them banned, however biological and chemical weapons are great for self defense, relatively easier and cheaper to produce, and logistically more detrimental to the targeted enemy.

Disadvantages

The disadvantages of biological and chemical weapons are much more evident than the advantages. One of the many drawbacks of biological weapons is their unavoidable lasting effect. Once it’s out, the weapon has the potential to unleash massive epidemics of deadly infectious disease. An example being smallpox which we no longer immunize against making it near impossible to stop. If smallpox was released among the unsuspected public again, it could wipe out millions as it is randomly passed from person to person.

On top of its lasting and catastrophic effect, biological and chemical weapons are awfully easy to get in the wrong hands and used for terrorist attacks and other non-beneficial uses. Anyone with a few years of training in chemistry and access to raw materials could easily produce a weapon like sarin gas. Although the possibility of someone on the street could do this seems rather unlikely, it isn’t too hard to hire a chemist with some level of training and easily pull off a deadly attack. Considering how easy it is to produce, it’d be expected to see more terrorist attacks with chemical weapons. However, of those who try to make it, if they do not know what they’re doing, are likely going to die in the process. Despite its low level of difficulty to produce, it is not easy to be successful. The last and most successful attack was in March 1995. Five members from the cult movement Aum Shinrikyo released sarin, a toxic nerve agent, on three lines on the Tokyo Metro during rush hour killing 12 people, severely injuring 50 and causing temporary vision problems for nearly 5,000 others. In a confined space with a large number of people, the subway was the ideal location for the use of chemical weapons.

While biological and chemical weapons are easy to obtain and hard to keep under control, the most toxic trait might be its associated psychological effects. With the mere thought of such weapons to ever be deployed, it is no surprise to see large scale panic in people. The weapons induced malaise, fear, and anxiety on everyday life which may remain high for years on after. This can exacerbate pre-existing psychiatric disorders and the risk of mass sociogenic illness. One example of mass sociogenic illness is a bioterrorism attack at a Washington middle school in September 2001. Paints fumes were released which sent 16 students and a teacher to the hospital. In the following month, over 1,000 students in several schools located in Manila, Philippines flooded the local clinics with ordinary flu-like symptoms after rumors spread via text message alerts. The rumors stated that these symptoms were a result of a bioterrorism attack. In the next few days, a man sprayed an unknown substance into a Maryland subway station which resulted in 35 people reporting symptoms of nausea, headache, and sore throat. The substance turned out to be window cleaner.

Advantages

Despite all the disadvantages over biological and chemical warfare, there are advantages to having these weapons around. Although most countries use it for attacking other countries, biological and chemical weapons are useful for self defense. Another country will be less likely to attack another if the possibility of being attacked in return is probable. Also for its similar destructive power, it is much cheaper and easier to build than the conventional bomb. This is great for nations who want to reduce their budget for defense. Some call these weapons a “poor nation’s atomic bomb” which is quite fitting. As inhumane biological and chemical warfare can be, it can be considered optimal. To wound one individual, which would require two others’ attention and care from the enemy’s side, is more detrimental than attempting to kill one individual.

Discussion

Chemical and biological weapons’ effects often stay around for much longer than we desire. They don’t hold up to the conventional explosive weapon. Drop a conventional weapon, it explodes and shrapnel is released. The damage is done and over relatively faster. But with certain biological weapons, we lose all control once it’s been released and it can go on for an unwanted amount of time. Along with biological warfare being unmanageable, it will affect people that were not targets thus even incapacitating innocent civilians. Once the knowledge of how to produce a weapon like this is out, it’s easy to get into the wrong hands. Rather than used as defense for a country, these weapons can be used against one’s own country. The unnerving thought of an attack ever possibly occurring can be haunting not just on individuals, but on entire societies. The attack in the Washington middle school and incident in Manila is a prime example of mass sociogenic illness. The lasting effects of mass sociogenic illness serve as a reminder of the dangers of unintentionally amplifying the psychological responses to biological and chemical weapons. On top of worsening the psychological responses, it worsened already existing psychological issues as well. These weapons were created with the intention to inflict injury, cause disease, and to kill humans. However, little did we know it would stick around like an guest who overstayed their welcome, easily be used to hurt rather than protect one’s country and worsen an entire society’s psychological response.

Conclusion

Biological and chemical weapons have their advantages and disadvantages. Some might see biological and chemical warfare as a gateway to complete havoc and just simply inhumane; some can see the advantages albeit there are not too many. Seeing how many disadvantages there are compared to number of the advantages of these weapons, the best option might seem to be simply ban weapons of this sort and make illegal. But how effective is that? Just because there’s a rule saying no more biological and chemical weapons, it doesn’t necessarily mean people are going to listen. Once the knowledge of how to produce these weapons gets out, there is no getting it back. It becomes a matter of how to prevent this — not how to stop its existence entirely.

  • https://www.npr.org/2013/05/01/180348908/why-chemical-weapons-have-been-a-red-line-since-world-war-i
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1121425/
  • https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1732455/pdf/v057p00353.pdf
  • https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1193&context=cjil
  • https://www.wagingpeace.org/chemical-and-biological-weapons-use-in-warfare-impact-on-society-and-environment/
  • https://www.news-medical.net/health/Smallpox-Biological-Warfare.aspx
  • https://www.rt.com/op-ed/chemical-weapons-training-attainable-740/

Robert Serber

Robert Serber’s photo badge for Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Beginnings

On March 14, 1909, Dr. Robert Serber, an American physicist, was born. Dr. Serber was the protege of Dr. Robert Oppenheimer, widely known for his work as a director for the Los Alamos Project. Serber’s job entitled explaining the basic principles and goals of the Manhattan Project to incoming staff.

Education

In 1930, Serber earned his B.S. in Engineering Physics from Lehigh University and his Ph.D. from University of Wisconsin, Madison with John Van Vleck in 1934. After earning his doctorate, he began his postdoctoral work at University of California, Berkeley with Oppenheimer where the two became friends and also his mentor. 

Los Alamos

Shortly after, Serber was recruited by Oppenheimer for the Manhattan Project in 1941. As head of the laboratory, Oppenheimer decided to not separate the information among the different departments in order to give the departments a sense of unity and a common goal. This allowed them to work more efficiently and sparked a sense of urgency towards completion of the project. This decision also increased the partnerships and relationships between departments as it gave the scientists a clearer idea of the common goal they shared. In order to keep the departments on the same page, it fell on Serber to keep them up to date hence the creation of The Los Alamos Primer, which was based off of the conclusions from a conference held at the University of California, Berkeley by Oppenheimer. It has been declassified and is now available to the public.

Along with Serber’s amazing ability to illustrate complicated concepts, he had a knack for clever names.  He was responsible for the witty code-names for all three bomb designs — the “Little Boy” was the uranium gun, the “Thin Man” was the plutonium gun, and the “Fat Man” was the plutonium implosion. The code-names given were based on their design shapes. The “Little Boy” was named in contrast to the “Thin Man” which was a very long device and also inspired by the Dashiell Hammett detective novel The Thin Man. The “Fat Man” bomb was round and fat and inspired by a character in The Maltese Falcon.

Postwar

Serber’s hard work and efforts did not go unnoticed. In 1972, Serber was awarded the J. Robert Oppenheimer Memorial Prize for his work in theoretical physics and the Manhattan Project. The award included a medal, certificate and a $1000 reward. Unfortunately, Robert Serber died on June 1, 1997 due to complications after surgery for brain cancer. Serber’s legacy will be appreciated and remembered by many.  

 


SOURCES
  • “Robert Serber (1909 – 1997).” Robert Serber | Biography, 2015, www.atomicarchive.com/Bios/Serber.shtml.
  • “Robert Serber.” Atomic Heritage Foundation, 14 Mar. 1909, www.atomicheritage.org/profile/robert-serber.
  • “Robert Serber.” Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 23 Dec. 2017, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Serber.
  • Freeman, Karen. “Robert Serber, 88, Physicist Who Aided Birth of A-Bomb.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 1 June 1997, www.nytimes.com/1997/06/02/us/robert-serber-88-physicist-who-aided-birth-of-a-bomb.html?scp=1&sq=Robert%2BSerber&st=cse.

Written by Sabrina Au.