Editor's Note: This essay Professor Moon has provided for the ASA Newsletter is based on an original presentation he made at the Air University, Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama on 6 September 2000.]

Weapons of Mass Destruction: A Movement Toward the End of War?

John Ellis van Courtland Moon, Ph.D.
Professor of History Emeritus

I. The Nature of War:
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds." On 16 July 1945, Robert J. Oppenheimer, observing the detonation of the first nuclear device at Alamogordo, New Mexico, recalled the words of Vishnu in the Bhagavad-Gita: As he speculated: "I suppose we all thought that, one way or another." After the use of atomic weapons over Japan, many prophets predicted that the next war would be nuclear and that, given the subsequent development of hydrogen weapons, it could well lead to the destruction of civilization. Not surprisingly, many voices were raised asserting an either/or proposition: "Either we end war or it will end us."

Clausewitz, the Prussian military analyst, defined war in two ways: Absolute War: "an act of force" to which "there is no logical limit...." and Real War: "a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse by other means". The development of weapons of mass destruction (NBC: nuclear, chemical and biological), unforseen by Clausewitz, threatens to undermine the controlled use of force implicit in his second definition. A war that begins with well defined goals may end up in a conflagration that destroys civilization.

Another of Clausewitz's key concepts is the friction which breaks the momentum of military operations and limits the extremes of violence: "Action in war is like movement in a resistant element." First, friction arises out of the determination of the opponents to force one another down. Clausewitz compares war to a wrestling match. Each side exerts maximum force to compel the opponent to his will. There is also the friction of space and time: geographical obstacles, distance, terrain, the time it takes to mobilize, organize, train and deploy forces. Finally, there is chance which often plays god in war. But the development of weapons of mass destruction has wrought a revolution in warfare, diminishing the role of friction. Although chance would still play a role, even in a full-scale nuclear war, the barriers of space and time have shrunk to such an extent that they have become almost insignificant. We have reached the threshold of absolute war.

II. Weapons of Mass Destruction
In this thermonuclear age, restraint has become imperative because the limitations of time and space have almost vanished. The Roman pilum could strike down only the opposing soldiers in the front lines of enemy battle formations. Today, long range missiles can breach intercontinental barriers. Potential destruction in future war has been magnified not only by the yield of modern weapons but also by their means of delivery. From the development of artillery, through the use of long range bombers, to the emergence of the intercontinental ballistic missiles, the range of weapons has distanced the launcher from his target. We are faced with a paradox. Throughout history, increase in force has initially given an advantage to one belligerent over another. Now, the major nuclear powers have reached the point where they command far too much force for the sane achievement of any political purpose.

In 1947, recognizing this mounting danger, the United Nations defined weapons of mass destruction as including nuclear, chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons. In its 1969 report, the United Nations drew up a comparative table estimating the "Disabling Effects of Hypothetical Attacks on Totally Unprotected Populations Using a Nuclear Chemical or Bacteriological (Biological) Weapon That Could be Carried By A Single Strategic Bomber" According to this table, the potential range of a 10 ton biological attack significantly exceeds that of a one megaton nuclear explosion. And while chemical weapons have a more limited range than other weapons of mass destruction, 15 tons of nerve agent can cause a 50% death rate in the affected area. However the table deals only with an unprotected population and that there are many variables which would affect the impact of any attack: protection, weather, climate, physical structures within the target area, etc.

In what ways are biological and chemical arms weapons of mass destruction? First, they are indiscriminate. Second, they are basically uncontrollable. Third, they are poisonous. In World War I, chemical warfare was basically a conflict between soldiers. Civilians were not directly targeted. Then the lethality of the chemical warfare agents was limited and could be countered with defensive measures and equipment. However, the development of nerve gases turned chemical weapons into weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, the development of strategic bombing in World War II opened up the prospect of targeting large population centers with chemical bombs.

Biological and toxin warfare is by nature indiscriminate. Targeting soldiers on a battlefield carries no guarantee that these agents will not travel into population centers far behind the battle lines. The use of infectious agents, like smallpox, could create an epidemic with disastrous consequences, especially since the elimination of this disease has paradoxically left nations highly vulnerable. Another example: anthrax spores are long lasting and the pulmonary form of the disease is highly lethal.

Second, chemical and biological weapons are basically uncontrollable. Chemical weapons can be used with some assurance by a combatant if they are fired at targets beyond the battleline: airfields, supply depots, lines of communication, ports and cities. When used on the battlefield, however, they can boomerang, blowing back on the attacker. Unless the initiator is well protected, he can suffer severe casualties. Biological weapons are even more uncontrollable than chemical weapons. Unless the attacker vaccinates his population, he could create an epidemic which would sicken and kill his own people as well as his enemy's.

III. War Between Nations
Despite a long standing taboo, chemical weapons, and to a much more limited extent, biological weapons have been used in warfare. How do we envision their possible use in future war? Who are the most likely initiators?

Here are three scenarios: war between major powers, between a major power and a "rogue" nation and between a possessor of CBW weapons and a non-possessor.

Major powers war scenario: The US, the UK and the overwhelming majority of nation states are unlikely to initiate CBW against one another. Up to 1969, the United States had probably the most advanced BW program in the world. Following President Nixon's renunciation of biological and toxin weapons, its stocks were destroyed, its expert personnel were redeployed, its facilities were converted. The UK also renounced BW. Russia, the US and many other nations have ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention and are committed to destroying their stocks. However, there is a problem of trust regarding the elimination of Russia's biological warfare program. Although it was a signatory and a depository nation for the 1975 Biological Weapons Convention prohibiting "the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons" and mandating the destruction of existing stocks, the Russian Government admitted in 1992 that biological weapons activities had continued long after the Soviet ratification of the Convention. President Yeltsin forthwith ordered a cessation of all such activities but suspicion remains that the Russian program might be continuing. Nevertheless, it is unlikely that Russia would initiate either chemical or biological warfare against the NATO powers. The present nuclear superiority of the West and the fear that CBW use could escalate into nuclear war would hold Russia back. China, who would also be deterred by the nuclear superiority of the West, at present does not possess the means to wage CBW against a major power.

Use by a "rogue" state against a major power: The "rogue" states are commonly identified as North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Libya, the Sudan and Syria. The popular view is that these states are run by madmen who have no compunctions about using any weapon on hand. But their rulers are accomplished survivors. It is unlikely that any national leader, except in desperation, would release a chemical or biological attack against a nuclear armed power.

Use by possessor states versus non-possessors: The greatest danger for any future use of chemical and biological weapons in war is in a conflict between a state which possesses these weapons and another state which does not. It has happened in at least in five conflicts since 1918. In 1925, mustard gas was used by the Spanish in Morocco; in 1935-1936, by the Italians in Ethiopia. In 1937-1945, Japanese troops used a variety of chemical and biological agents against Chinese soldiers and civilians. In 1963-1967, the Egyptian forces probably used chemical weapons against the Royalist troops in Yemen. The most intensive use of chemical weapons since World War I took place during the Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988. In these five cases, an imbalance of force existed. Consequently, chemical weapon deterrence, based on common possession and fear of retaliation, did not operate.

IV. TOWARDS ABSOLUTE WAR?:
In the 20th century, the trend towards Absolute War was marked by the development of three trends:

1. The acceleration of the technological revolution towards weapons of mass destruction.
2. The growth of the number of national states with the capability of acquiring these weapons.
3. The continuing growth of the nationalization of ethics, which shaped the waging of total war and which provided the justification that would mold the strategies and tactics, bringing conflict closer to the Clausewitzean extreme.

The Technological Revolution: In the past, armies had fought armies. Although civilians were often victims of combat, they were not the main target. No nation could win unless it defeated the enemy army that defended the civil population and the homeland. The development of air power now made the heartland of the enemy vulnerable to attack, thereby opening up a more direct target: the will of the foe upon which everything depends in war. Strategically, World War I and World War II were vast siege operations in which the Axis powers tried to break out from the encirclement lines thrown around their perimeters by Allied sea and land forces, later reinforced by air power: a siege in three dimensions. Due to the belief of air power advocates and some political leaders that civilian morale was the Achilles heel of any belligerent nation, a deliberate direct attack upon the will of that nation strengthened the notion that victory could be achieved quickly and cheaply. The advocates of air power predicted that gas, combined with high explosives, would do the job by provoking widespread panic in bombed cities. Governments would collapse, overcome by widespread fear.

Subsequently, of course, air bombing in World War II demonstrated that popular will and government resolution were far stronger than the prophets had predicted. But at the end of World War II and during the Cold War, the development of weapons of mass destruction brought the concept of Absolute War closer to potential realization. Like two scorpions in a bottle, the US and the USSR could sting one another to death.

Proliferation of the Means of Destruction: Since the 1970s, the number of potential possessors of modern weapons have increased considerably, weakening the possibility of controlling the uses of violence. A global spread of the technology of mass destruction, where the possession of even a few NBC weapons could bring untold devastation, has multiplied the possibilities for the release of uncontrolled violence.

The impact of total war: Total war has weakened the time-honored distinction between soldiers and civilians. The target has widened because total war requires industrial and psychological mobilization. War-making industries and other institutions that nourish the sinews of war are often found in major urban areas. Modern nations also need popular mass support behind their war effort. The nationalization of ethics, in which the rules governing politics and war are determined by the state, challenged the universalization of values of earlier centuries, thereby weakening traditional scruples against targeting civilian populations in war. Now those who belong to the enemy are the enemy.

V. Conclusion: Whence the Future?


How are we to regard the aim of war in the 21st century? Harkening back to Clausewitz's two definitions, we confront a fundamental philosophical question. Is the aim of war the maximum use of military power or is it the harnessing of violence in the service of political purpose? If the latter, then the strengthening of the norms of war, along with arms control and disarmament, must become a vital part of state policy. The classic Clausewitz definition now embraces far more than he could have imagined at the start of the 19th century when the destructiveness of weapons was still limited.

We are left with open questions: Will the potentiality for Absolute War be checked by the growth of international law? Will war continue to be a continuation of policy by other means? Will the threat of absolute war lead to the ending of all wars or will it bring about the abolition of humanity?

Editor's Note: Professor Moon is a very highly respected historian who is well noted for his accuracy and clarity in writing.

00-6, issue no. 81