Chemical Weapons: Are They Really a Threat?

"All is fair in love and war." These familiar words were spoken by Francis Edward Smedley, an English novelist, over 100 years ago. While most people realize this is just an old English proverb, others seem to take it very literally, including many terrorist groups. While the United States of America always protects itself and its citizens from terrorism, it has become very controversial what exactly should be done in defense against chemical warfare. Many people are worried that the use of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" may cause an epidemic in the United States, while others do not believe chemical weapons pose a threat. Some argue that there is no such thing as too much prevention, while others think the country is wasting millions of dollars every year protecting our citizens from something that they are not in danger of.

Types of Chemical Agents

Chemical weapons consist of different types of agents that cause damage to living organisms. There are four types of chemical agents including blister agents, choking agents, blood agents, and nerve agents.

Blister agents, such as mustard gas, mainly attack exposed skin and cause blisters, but can also be carcinogenic. There are no immediate effects, but within four to twenty hours the victim will be suffering. If the eyes were exposed, even blindness can occur. Mustard gas and other blister agents would be a useful weapon for someone looking to inflict severe pain and damage without causing many fatalities.

Choking agents, including chlorine gas, are easily obtainable chemicals that can cause a victim to choke when inhaled. These weapons are uncommon since the introduction of nerve agents, but were widely used in World War I. Unlike blister agents, choking agents impair your ability to breathe, leading to suffocation and death.

Blood agents are chemical compounds that are brought into the blood stream to be dispersed throughout the body. Most blood agents have a high evaporation rate-hindering their effectiveness. While blood agents can be deadly, they are commonly accepted as a valuable way to assassinate an individual, but not much of a threat to a large group of people.

The latest development in chemical weapons is nerve agents. These gases, such as sarin gas, while not as easy to come by, are extremely effective. Small quantities can cause fatal damage to thousands of people. Nerve agents are exponentially more dangerous than the other three types of chemical weapons and are our greatest threat.

Advantages to Terrorists

Those concerned with the possibility of chemical weapons used against the United States solely consider the advantages of these weapons to terrorist groups. To these people the chemical agents in chemical weapons rank right next to nuclear weapons of the Cold War. People believe that not enough action is being taken by the country to find and destroy these weapons of mass destruction. The advantages of chemical weapons to terrorists range from cost and efficiency to the fear of the name itself. Chemical agents such as nerve gas only cost $600 per square kilometer in comparison to $800 per square kilometer and $2,000 per square kilometer for large scale troop occupation (Godber 2001). Chemical weapons are easily manufactured and extremely difficult to detect. Unlike nuclear technology, chemical weapons do not require nearly as much knowledge, skill or money to be used to kill a large amount of people. In recent tests, experts have proven that creating chemical weapons were no more difficult to create than heroin (Godber 2001). Radioactive material used in nuclear weapons can be easily detected but chemical weapons cannot be detected by any current technology while being stored or in use (Harris 2002). This makes searches for weapons of mass destruction by the United Nations completely useless as far as finding chemical weapons goes (Haugen 2001). One final advantage of chemical weapons is the cruel and unusual pain and damage inflicted by these weapons. The very threat of these weapons brings fear to soldiers and citizens alike. Birth defect and other disastrous affects lead people to be scared by the mere threat of chemical weapon use. If chemical weapons become a major player in the war against terrorism the United States young men in the country that were considering joining our armed forces may turn away.

Disadvantages to Terrorists

Those arguing that the country is wasting money on a defense that is not needed will present the disadvantages of chemical warfare and for every advantage that chemical weapons bring to terrorist organizations there are equal and opposite disadvantages and for every person who believes chemical weapons are a threat to the United States there is a person saying that it should not be worried about. The weapons can inflict a lot of damage, the increased casualties will lead to a more serious and resilient retaliation by anyone who is targeted (Siegel 2006). It is hard to target an organization who's method of terrorism include suicide and car bombing because there is no real prevention for either of the two. While lives are lost in many cases, no severe damage is caused by any single event. If a large scale chemical attack took place against the United States, it is guaranteed that people responsible for such an attack would pay the consequences. Cost is an advantage of chemical weapons because they can be bought for a relatively low price, but finding someone to buy it from can be a huge disadvantage (Walsh 2007). Chemical compounds used for these weapons of mass destruction cannot be legally purchased over the internet so finding a vender willing to sell these organizations the chemicals that they need can be a very difficult task. As for chemical weapons being easy to create, it is not so easy for third world terrorist groups to actually use the weapons without hurting themselves. Missiles necessary to launch these chemicals into a populated area are not readily available for most terrorist groups that rely on suicide bombings.

Conclusion

In the last few years, chemical weapons have proven not to be the serious threat they were made out to be. Since the Subway Sarin Incident in Tokyo, chemical weapons have not shown their face even once in an act of terrorism. While many dollars have been spent in search of weapons of mass destruction in countries that the United States suspect as possible enemies, up to this point nothing has been found. Terrorists continue to use suicide and car bombings to create dramatic new stories, but there is no indication that any action has been taken to deploy chemical weapons as an act of terrorism. Though it may be very possible for these chemicals to be used as weapons of mass destruction against the United States it appears that terrorist organizations around the world do not believe the advantages of such methods would out weigh the consequences of their use. If any research or development is being done on chemical weapons it has yet to uncover itself. It is possible that the chemical part of the problem has been solved, but the organization working on such weapons are unable to deploy them at their intended enemy. At this point, it would appear that it was a waste of time and money to be digging through old warehouses in the Middle East, searching for weapons of mass destruction.

References

Godber, Austin. "Terrorist Use of Chemical Weapons." 26 Sept. 2001. Arizona State University. 11 Dec.

2007 .

Harris, Elisa D. "State-Aided Terrorists Pose a Serious Bioweapons Threat." Contemporary Issues

Companion: Biological Weapons. 1 July 2002. Brookings. 11 Dec. 2007

.

Haugen, David M. "Biological Weapons are a Serious Threat." Biological and Chemical Weapons. 5 Jan.

2001. 11 Dec. 2007 .

Siegel, Marc. "Fears of Biological and Chemical Attacks are Overblown." At Issue: Biological and

Chemical Weapons. 2006. New York University. 11 Dec. 2007

.

Walsh, Jim. "The Threat of Biological Terrorism Has Been Exaggerated." Opposing Viewpoints:

Terrorism. 11 Dec. 2007. University of Wisconsin-Madison. 11 Dec. 2007

.