|
From the
November 04, 2002 edition of Christian Science Monitor @
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1104/p01s04-usmi.html US
moves into emerging bioweapon era
Rapid biotech developments, like Russia's use of
fentanyl, are leaving international treaties behind. By Brad Knickerbocker | Staff
writer of The Christian Science Monitor The use of poison gas to subdue Chechen rebels in Moscow,
together with what the Bush administration says is the growing threat of Iraq's
chemical weapons, comes as the United States itself investigates new substances
that can be used to disable terrorists – perhaps even battlefield opponents. More profoundly, the opiate used to knock out the Chechen
attackers (which killed 117 of 763 hostages) reflects a new era in weapons
development: using biotech advances to degrade enemy forces while enhancing
one's own troops. According to
Pentagon documents, the Defense Department is studying the development and use
of so-called "calmative"
chemicals as well as "incapacitants, malodorants, and possibly convulsants." The idea is to take the fight out
of an attacker without inflicting mortal damage. One report commissioned by the Marine Corps' Joint
Non-Lethal Weapons Directorate concluded after an "extensive review
conducted on the medical literature and new developments in the pharmaceutical
industry" that "the development and use of [incapacitating agents] is
achievable and desirable." Critics say that by designing such weapons as an 81-millimeter
mortar round that can carry a chemical payload a mile and a half, the US may be
violating international treaties. International treaty law As was true during the Moscow hostage crisis, the challenge
will be minimizing harm to innocent civilians. Officials appear to recognize the sensitivity of this
matter: A Defense Department review of legal requirements for nonlethal weapons
development asks "whether the weapon causes unnecessary suffering ...
whether the weapon is capable of being controlled in a discriminatory manner
... whether there is a specific rule of law prohibiting its use." Chemical
and biological weapons are controlled by three treaties dating back to 1925.
In essence, nations may not develop, possess, or use such weapons. The Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993
has been signed by 174 countries (including the US) who pledged to destroy
chemical arsenals. The treaty defines a chemical agent as "any chemical,
which ... can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans
or animals." That would seem
to describe the opiate
fentanyl
used by Russian security forces. But the treaty also allows the use of chemical agents for
riot control and other law-enforcement activities – a loophole which presumably
could be interpreted to mean anything related to domestic terrorism, perhaps
even "hot pursuit" of terrorists beyond national boundaries. One major problem is the relative level of effect among
combatants and civilians – including children and the elderly, who may suffer much
worse effects (including death) than stronger and fitter soldiers. Trying to incapacitate snipers in – say
– downtown Baghdad makes it very difficult to discriminate between combatants
and bystanders caught in the crossfire, just as it was in Mogadishu, Somalia,
in 1993. Research spillover effects? The concern about developing chemical and biological weapons
has a broader context as well: the Pentagon's research into
"performance-enhancing" drugs.
US Air Force pilots flying long-range missions regularly take
amphetamines ("go pills") to fight fatigue and then sedatives
("no-go pills") to induce sleep. But far more advanced means of enhancing performance are
being studied by the US Special Operations Command, the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, and other Defense Department organizations. One example is quarter-sized body "monitors" that
can be implanted under the skin of a soldier's neck and used to trigger the
release of chemicals for "body regulation" and the release of
"rejuvenating drugs." "That research is very much alive and well," says
retired Rear Adm. Stephen Baker, the Navy's former chief of operational testing
and evaluation. The danger is that it may be only a short step from
developing chemical and biological agents that enhance US soldier's performance
from those that degrade enemy troops.
In fact, the potential for overlap in the research leaves some experts
worried. "It would be difficult to argue that military
performance enhancers violate any treaties," says Edward Hammond, director
of the Sunshine Project in Austin, Tex., a research center that investigates
biological and chemical weapons in the US and Europe. "But their widespread use would lower the threshold for
use of chemical weapons, particularly psychoactive substances, in
conflict." "If enhancing yourself is routine," Mr. Hammond
asks, "how large a step would it be to chemically 'diminish' or 'de-
enhance' your enemy?" The biotech "revolution" What seems likely is that the science of such advanced
weaponry soon could outpace anything envisioned in arms control treaties – if
it hasn't already. "There is a profound revolution underway in
biology," says Mark Wheelis, a microbiologist at the University of
California, Davis. "The same
tools that are revolutionizing drug discovery can be used to discover novel
biochemical agents for the purpose of weaponization." This could even include genetically
engineered biological weapons designed to attack things like camouflage paint,
stealth coatings, and electronic insulation – an area of research sought by the
Navy and the Air Force. "I can understand the military infatuation with these
technologies," Dr. Wheelis said. "There's
a clear tactical utility to these weapons," he said. "But they come with a cost and the
cost is largely in the area of arms control and we'd better be sure we want to
pay that price before we actually do it." In any case, Wheelis writes in a recent report for the
Monterey Institute of International Studies that "the technical landscape
of chemical and biological arms control is rapidly changing." There is no doubt that the Pentagon is canvassing this
landscape to craft defensive responses to potential enemy use of these weapons
against US soldiers. But they may
also be looking at these weapons for their own interests, as a way of defeating
terrorists or other enemies as well. "In principle, bioengineering is on some level just an
information processing problem," says John Pike, head of GlobalSecurity.org
in Alexandria, Virginia, which researches and analyzes national security
issues. "And how much longer
will [it take] before the information processing required for shake-and-bake bioengineering starts to become easily within the reach
of a bright lunatic?" "I don't know the answers to any of these
questions," says Mr. Pike.
"But I reasonably assume that the US government would like to get
these answers many years before anyone else has them." At
least some answers may emerge this week when the National Academy of Sciences
is expected to issue a report on non-lethal weapons. Clash over old chemical arms As required under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993, the US is working to rid itself of
millions of bombs, rockets, spray tanks, and other weapons containing nerve
gas, blistering agents, and other deadly chemicals. The newest of those weapons date back to 1968 (when the US
stopped making them) and some are remnants of World War II, which means that
many are leaking toxic substances. At several federal government sites around the country, such
weapons are being incinerated. The process has had some technical problems causing leaks
and other safety issues, and there have been delays tied to lawsuits
challenging the program. For
example, the Army's Umatilla
Chemical Depot in Oregon
has been preparing to burn more than 7 million pounds of Cold War-era chemical weapons stored in concrete
bunkers. But a lawsuit brought by a coalition of environmental groups
that is now being heard in state court alleges that incineration is not a safe
method of disposal. Getting rid of old chemical weapons, it seems, is just as
controversial as the prospect of developing new ones. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1104/p01s04-usmi.html Outgoing Mail Scanned by NAV 2002 |
