MILITARY advisers in the US want to rewrite the treaties banning chemical and
biological weapons so they can develop “non-lethal” versions. To safeguard the
lives of American troops in peacekeeping operations, they want to use weapons
that, for instance, will allow whole rebel armies to be put to sleep—or
perhaps disable their vehicles and weapons.
But arms control experts are already condemning the idea as “disastrous”.
They believe the crucial treaties could unravel if they are renegotiated to
allow new weapons to be developed.
In the past few years, the US marines have become very interested in
non-lethal weapons for the complex peacekeeping operations they are often
involved in, such as that in Somalia. Such munitions could also help minimise
the “CNN effect”—the growing need to justify military actions to
politicians who watch them live on television.
Advertisement
Military and police forces already have dozens of weapons designed not to
kill, including rubber and plastic bullets, electric stun guns, sticky foam and
tear gas. But the Joint Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate of the US Marine Corps
also wants chemical and biological agents such as sleeping gases, tranquillisers
and oil-eating microbes which would incapacitate without injury.
“For example, I would like a magic dust that would put everyone in a building
to sleep, combatants and non-combatants,” the directorate’s head, Colonel George
Fenton told 91av. But he says that this type of technology
would mean reviewing the agreements aimed at ending chemical and biological
warfare.
Russell Glenn, a senior analyst from the Rand Corporation, which advises the
US Department of Defense, also argues that the ban on chemical weapons should be
“updated” so researchers can develop gases that could, for example, calm crowds
rather than kill them. “Chemicals can be our friends,” he told Jane’s Non-lethal
Weapons conference in Edinburgh last week.
Although the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention outlaws both lethal and
non-lethal weapons, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention is more ambiguous. It
bans the use of non-lethal weapons against enemy troops, but permits the use of
chemicals against property, provided they do not harm people or animals.
David Fidler, a legal expert on non-lethal weapons from Indiana University,
says that renegotiating these treaties would fatally undermine them, re-igniting
some countries’ desire for weapons of mass destruction. “It would be
disastrous,” he says.
The intergovernmental Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
warns that the chemical convention is under attack. Rewriting it would endanger
world security, says the OPCW’s head of government relations, Ralf Trapp,
“creating a spiral of increasing risk”.
There are also doubts within the US Department of Defense. Joseph Rutigliano,
an attorney with the US Marine Corps in Washington DC, says that unleashing
these new weapons on less technologically advanced nations could provoke them to
reply with nerve gas or other lethal agents.
But retired Colonel John Alexander, who researched non-lethal weapons at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory, argues that the chemical and biological treaties
are already “doomed” because they are, or will be, broken by rogue states or
groups. If the US abandoned the treaties it could deploy weapons which could,
for example, destroy plastic engine fittings or make rubber tyres brittle, he
says. “There is almost nothing that some bug won’t eat.”
