The Politics of “Weapons The Politics of “Weapons of Mass Destruction”of Mass Destruction”

The Creation of a ThreatThe Creation of a Threat

I. Defining the PhraseI. Defining the Phrase

What is the best way to define What is the best way to define “Weapons of Mass Destruction?”“Weapons of Mass Destruction?”

A. Origins of the PhraseA. Origins of the Phrase

1.1. Origin unknown: Possibly used as Origin unknown: Possibly used as early as 1937early as 1937

2.2. Increased use in 1990s. Substitute Increased use in 1990s. Substitute for Soviet threat?for Soviet threat?

3.3. Two connotations:Two connotations:a.a. Deadliness: These weapons can cause Deadliness: These weapons can cause

“mass” destruction“mass” destruction Concentration: A little WMD goes a Concentration: A little WMD goes a

long waylong way

Which weapons qualify?Which weapons qualify?

B. Recent Media Reports: B. Recent Media Reports: UnclearUnclear

““Weapon of Mass Destruction” – Weapon of Mass Destruction” – Washington Post headline about the Washington Post headline about the AK-47, Nov 26 2006AK-47, Nov 26 2006

Nuclear WeaponsNuclear Weapons

Radiological WeaponsRadiological Weapons

Cluster BombsCluster Bombs

Daisy Cutters / Daisy Cutters / MOABMOAB

White PhosphorousWhite Phosphorous

Depleted UraniumDepleted Uranium

Poison GasPoison Gas

EMP Weapons (E-Bombs)EMP Weapons (E-Bombs)

NapalmNapalm

Fuel-Air ExplosivesFuel-Air Explosives

Biological WeaponsBiological Weapons

Radiological Weapons (“Dirty Radiological Weapons (“Dirty Bombs”)Bombs”)

C. US Law: Over-InclusiveC. US Law: Over-Inclusive1. Definition: 1. Definition:

(A) any (A) any destructive device as defined in section destructive device as defined in section 921921 of this title; of this title;

(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to (B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors; poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;

(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, (C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or 178 of this title); or

(D) any weapon that is designed to release (D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human lifehuman life

Section 921 says…Section 921 says… The term “destructive device” means— The term “destructive device” means— (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas— (A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—

(i) bomb, (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four

ounces, ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of

more than one-quarter ounce, more than one-quarter ounce, (v) mine, or (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the

preceding clauses; preceding clauses; (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun) (B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun)

which will expel a projectile by the action of an which will expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter…diameter…

2. Recent Convictions 2. Recent Convictions (2008)(2008)

Hewitt said between March 1 and May 4, Carlock, Sanders and Robinson built and tested several pipe bombs and then placed two at the FedEx distribution center ... One exploded at about 2 a.m. and broke the glass on the front door and set off the alarm, according to authorities. A second, unexploded bomb, which authorities believe was intended to hurt the first responders, was also found in the parking lot and detonated by bomb technicians. Both explosives were filled with nails.

2. Recent Convictions 2. Recent Convictions (2008)(2008)

A 24-year-old convert to Islam has A 24-year-old convert to Islam has been sentenced to 35 years in prison been sentenced to 35 years in prison for plotting to set off hand grenades for plotting to set off hand grenades in a crowded shopping mall during in a crowded shopping mall during the Christmas season. He had the Christmas season. He had offered to trade stereo speakers for offered to trade stereo speakers for some grenades.some grenades.

2. Recent Convictions 2. Recent Convictions (2008)(2008)

The teenager accused of planning to bomb his high school told investigators he had placed several pipe bombs around his family's home, but authorities have found no explosives, a prosecutor said Wednesday. Ryan Schallenberger may have just been bragging, state prosecutor Jay Hodge said. A search that included the use of a bomb-sniffing dog found nothing Saturday, when the boy was arrested after his parents discovered he had ordered ammonium nitrate on eBay.

3. Why such a broad definition – 3. Why such a broad definition – and why apply it to smaller and why apply it to smaller

attacks?attacks? Previous penalties = max 10 years Previous penalties = max 10 years

for attempt to injure, max 20 years for attempt to injure, max 20 years for attempt to killfor attempt to kill

WMD offenses = max life sentencesWMD offenses = max life sentences

4. Why not just increase penalties 4. Why not just increase penalties for all terrorism (not just WMD for all terrorism (not just WMD

use) to life?use) to life? Prosecutors like the discretion Prosecutors like the discretion

(judges sentence within guidelines (judges sentence within guidelines determined by offense)determined by offense)

5. Conclusion: Legal definition 5. Conclusion: Legal definition of WMD is of WMD is politicalpolitical, not , not

technical technical Compare Compare

Media (inconsistent, anything “big” Media (inconsistent, anything “big” looks like WMD)looks like WMD)

Law (very broad definition to maximize Law (very broad definition to maximize prosecutorial discretion)prosecutorial discretion)

Is there a more logical approach?Is there a more logical approach?

C. The Logic of “Weapons of C. The Logic of “Weapons of Mass Destruction”Mass Destruction”

1.1. CharacteristicsCharacteristicsa.a. Potential to cause mass casualtiesPotential to cause mass casualtiesb.b. Distinct from “conventional” weaponsDistinct from “conventional” weaponsc.c. Violate international normsViolate international norms

2.2. Logic: Definition primarily revolves Logic: Definition primarily revolves around around social perception of social perception of weaponsweapons rather than weapon rather than weapon characteristicscharacteristics

3.3. Evidence: What counts as “WMD Evidence: What counts as “WMD terrorism?”terrorism?”

Examples of “WMD Examples of “WMD Terrorism”Terrorism”

1984: Rajneeshee cult attacks in The 1984: Rajneeshee cult attacks in The Dalles, Oregon with Typhoid (Dalles, Oregon with Typhoid (no deathsno deaths) ) and Salmonella (750 poisoned, and Salmonella (750 poisoned, no no deathsdeaths))

1994: Aum Shinrikyo Attacks Matsumoto 1994: Aum Shinrikyo Attacks Matsumoto neighborhood with Sarin nerve gas, neighborhood with Sarin nerve gas, kills 7kills 7

1995: Aum Shinrikyo attacks Tokyo 1995: Aum Shinrikyo attacks Tokyo subway with Sarin nerve gas, subway with Sarin nerve gas, kills 12kills 12

2001: Anthrax-laced letters 2001: Anthrax-laced letters kill fivekill five in in USAUSA

2007: Three chlorine-laced bombs 2007: Three chlorine-laced bombs kill 11kill 11 in Iraqin Iraq

NOT “WMD Terrorism”NOT “WMD Terrorism” 1824: Suspected Albanians or 1824: Suspected Albanians or

Wahabbis detonate armory in Egypt; Wahabbis detonate armory in Egypt; perhaps perhaps 4000 killed 4000 killed

1978: Extremists suspected of arson 1978: Extremists suspected of arson of theater in Iran that of theater in Iran that kills 477kills 477

2001: Al-Qaeda crashes four airliners 2001: Al-Qaeda crashes four airliners into buildings, into buildings, killing about 3000killing about 3000

2004: Russians storm terrorist-held 2004: Russians storm terrorist-held school in Beslan, leading to school in Beslan, leading to 366 366 deathsdeaths

D. Applying a “Social Norms” D. Applying a “Social Norms” Definition: “WMD” Definition: “WMD” ≠≠ WMD WMD

1.1. Nuclear weaponsNuclear weapons – Uniquely horrifying (see – Uniquely horrifying (see many specific nuke-only agreements, fear of many specific nuke-only agreements, fear of radiation)radiation)

2.2. Biological weaponsBiological weapons – Potentially deadly and – Potentially deadly and inherently indiscriminate. Again, triggers inherently indiscriminate. Again, triggers international horrorinternational horror

3.3. Chemical weaponsChemical weapons – Little worse than – Little worse than conventional weapons (if at all) but images and conventional weapons (if at all) but images and casualties create horror (even Hitler refuses to casualties create horror (even Hitler refuses to use gas in war after being gassed himself)use gas in war after being gassed himself)

4.4. Not “WMD”Not “WMD” – Conventional (Cluster Bombs, – Conventional (Cluster Bombs, MOAB, Fuel-Air Explosives, AK-47) or MOAB, Fuel-Air Explosives, AK-47) or Unconventional but not horrific (E-Bomb)Unconventional but not horrific (E-Bomb)

5.5. Tough casesTough cases: Borderline chemical weapons : Borderline chemical weapons (White Phosphorous, Napalm), Radiological (White Phosphorous, Napalm), Radiological weapons (“Dirty Bombs,” Depleted Uranium)weapons (“Dirty Bombs,” Depleted Uranium)

Chemical (CW)

Biological (BW)

Nuclear

Radiological

E. E. TerminologyTerminology

Chemical (CW)

Biological (BW)

E. E. TerminologyTerminology

CBW (Chemical and Biological Warfare)

Chemical (CW)

Biological (BW)

Nuclear

NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical)

E. E. TerminologyTerminology

Chemical (CW)

Biological (BW)

Nuclear

ABC (Atomic, Biological, Chemical)

E. E. TerminologyTerminology

Chemical (CW)

Biological (BW)

Nuclear

Radiological

E. E. TerminologyTerminology

CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear)

II. The International Politics of II. The International Politics of WMD WMD

A.A. Benefits of WMD Programs – and Benefits of WMD Programs – and associated problemsassociated problems

1.1. Deterrence – Prevent attacks by Deterrence – Prevent attacks by rational opponents by making costs of rational opponents by making costs of attack exceed benefitsattack exceed benefits

a.a. Problem: Countries don’t like being Problem: Countries don’t like being deterred (China vs. Taiwan, US vs. Iran). deterred (China vs. Taiwan, US vs. Iran). May encourage preventive war.May encourage preventive war.

b.b. Problem: Mutual deterrence strategies Problem: Mutual deterrence strategies increase costs of war if opponent becomes increase costs of war if opponent becomes irrational and attacks anyway.irrational and attacks anyway.

2. Warfighting: Winning Battles 2. Warfighting: Winning Battles and Forcing Surrenderand Forcing Surrender

a.a. Problem: Best weapons for Problem: Best weapons for deterrence may not be best for deterrence may not be best for battles.battles.

b.b. Problem: Best strategies for Problem: Best strategies for warfighting may prevent war warfighting may prevent war termination, increasing costs of termination, increasing costs of war.war.

3. Bargaining: Trade WMD 3. Bargaining: Trade WMD programs for concessionsprograms for concessions

a.a. Problem: Reputation concerns mean Problem: Reputation concerns mean negotiations are never strictly negotiations are never strictly bilateral. Concessions encourage bilateral. Concessions encourage others to develop WMD.others to develop WMD.

b.b. Problem: Trust increases Problem: Trust increases negotiation success – but WMD negotiation success – but WMD programs undermine trust.programs undermine trust.

4. Status: International 4. Status: International recognition and prestige (i.e. recognition and prestige (i.e. the P5 and nuclear weapons)the P5 and nuclear weapons)

a.a. Problem: The P5 were the P5 before Problem: The P5 were the P5 before nuclearization. Effect mistaken for nuclearization. Effect mistaken for cause?cause?

b.b. Problem: International efforts to Problem: International efforts to curb WMD are designed to curb WMD are designed to stigmatize new proliferation.stigmatize new proliferation.

B. Costs of WMD ProgramsB. Costs of WMD Programs

1.1. Resources / Opportunity Costs – The Resources / Opportunity Costs – The money, talent, leadership effort, money, talent, leadership effort, and other resources put into WMD and other resources put into WMD might be better spent on might be better spent on development (Guns vs. Butter development (Guns vs. Butter theories) or conventional arms.theories) or conventional arms.

2. Hostility and Arms Races2. Hostility and Arms Races WMD proliferation can provoke WMD proliferation can provoke

counter-proliferation. Nuclear counter-proliferation. Nuclear weapons example:weapons example: US develops in fear of pre-emption by US develops in fear of pre-emption by

Germany – Uses them to threaten USSRGermany – Uses them to threaten USSR USSR develops in fear of attack by US – USSR develops in fear of attack by US –

Uses them to threaten ChinaUses them to threaten China China develops in fear of attack by US China develops in fear of attack by US

(and later USSR) – Becomes threat to India(and later USSR) – Becomes threat to India India develops in fear of China – Becomes India develops in fear of China – Becomes

threat to Pakistanthreat to Pakistan Pakistan develops in fear of IndiaPakistan develops in fear of India

3. Opprobrium and 3. Opprobrium and SanctionsSanctions

Many agreements and laws call for Many agreements and laws call for types of sanctions against those that types of sanctions against those that try to acquire WMD.try to acquire WMD.

Even absent sanctions, states face Even absent sanctions, states face criticism for WMD programs. criticism for WMD programs. (Remember, part of the REAL (Remember, part of the REAL meaning of WMD is the stigma meaning of WMD is the stigma attached to the weapons).attached to the weapons).

C. When will benefits outweigh C. When will benefits outweigh costs?costs?

When states are HIGHLY concerned When states are HIGHLY concerned with:with:

Being attackedBeing attacked Losing the resulting warLosing the resulting war Having no allies or influence to save themHaving no allies or influence to save them

And states are NOT worried aboutAnd states are NOT worried about The opportunity costs (wealthy OR insulated The opportunity costs (wealthy OR insulated

from public welfare concerns)from public welfare concerns) Arms races (rivals already have WMD or are Arms races (rivals already have WMD or are

unable to acquire them)unable to acquire them) Opprobrium (state is already friendless or Opprobrium (state is already friendless or

under sanctions)under sanctions)

Which states meet these criteria today?Which states meet these criteria today?

III. Problems of WMDIII. Problems of WMD

A.A. Which weapons are considered WMD Which weapons are considered WMD (already answered!) and how are their (already answered!) and how are their effects similar to – or different from – effects similar to – or different from – those of conventional weapons?those of conventional weapons?

1.1. Chemical weapons – are they worse than Chemical weapons – are they worse than high explosives?high explosives?

2.2. Biological weapons – can they accomplish Biological weapons – can they accomplish missions which conventional weapons missions which conventional weapons cannot?cannot?

3.3. Nuclear weapons – are they just “bigger Nuclear weapons – are they just “bigger bombs” – or something qualitatively bombs” – or something qualitatively different?different?

B. In what ways – and why -- B. In what ways – and why -- do international laws and do international laws and

international institutions treat international institutions treat WMD differently from other WMD differently from other

weapons? weapons? 1.1. What international laws govern WMD?What international laws govern WMD?

2.2. What are the loopholes in these laws?What are the loopholes in these laws?

3.3. How did these laws come about?How did these laws come about?

4.4. How is the nonproliferation system How is the nonproliferation system maintained?maintained?

C. How does the possession of C. How does the possession of WMD by nations or their WMD by nations or their

adversaries affect the decisions adversaries affect the decisions that those nations make?that those nations make?

1.1. What doctrines govern the use of What doctrines govern the use of WMD?WMD?

2.2. What determines which doctrines a What determines which doctrines a state will adopt?state will adopt?

3.3. Do states with WMD behave Do states with WMD behave differently?differently?

4.4. Are states with WMD treated Are states with WMD treated differently?differently?

D. When and under what D. When and under what circumstances are WMD likely to be circumstances are WMD likely to be

used, and what are the likely used, and what are the likely consequences?consequences?

1.1. Are some states more likely than Are some states more likely than others to use WMD?others to use WMD?

2.2. What is the likelihood of accidental What is the likelihood of accidental or unauthorized use?or unauthorized use?

3.3. What are the effects of WMD on the What are the effects of WMD on the battlefield, political negotiation, and battlefield, political negotiation, and civilians?civilians?

4.4. How do wars fought with WMD end?How do wars fought with WMD end?