Transcript Foreign Policy and the National Interest

The Politics of “Weapons of
Mass Destruction”
The Creation of a Threat
I. Defining the Phrase

What is the best way to define “Weapons
of Mass Destruction?”
A. Origins of the Phrase
1.
2.
3.
Origin unknown: Possibly used as early
as 1937
Increased use in 1990s. Substitute for
Soviet threat?
Two connotations:
a.

Deadliness: These weapons can cause
“mass” destruction
Concentration: A little WMD goes a long way
Which weapons qualify?
B. Recent Media Reports: Unclear

“Weapon of Mass Destruction” –
Washington Post headline about the AK47, Nov 26 2006
Nuclear Weapons
Radiological Weapons
Cluster Bombs
Daisy Cutters / MOAB
White Phosphorous
Depleted Uranium
Poison Gas
EMP Weapons (E-Bombs)
Napalm
Fuel-Air Explosives
Biological Weapons
Radiological Weapons (“Dirty
Bombs”)
C. US Law: Over-Inclusive
1. Definition:




(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of
this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause
death or serious bodily injury through the release,
dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals,
or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or
vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this
title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or
radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
Section 921 says…


The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—







(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than
one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding
clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun) which will
expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other
propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more
than one-half inch in diameter…
2. Recent Convictions (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 (2008)

A 24-year-old convert to Islam has been
sentenced to 35 years in prison for
plotting to set off hand grenades in a
crowded shopping mall during the
Christmas season. He had offered to
trade stereo speakers for some grenades.
2. Recent Convictions (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 –
and why apply it to smaller attacks?


Previous penalties = max 10 years for
attempt to injure, max 20 years for
attempt to kill
WMD offenses = max life sentences
4. Why not just increase penalties for
all terrorism (not just WMD use) to life?

Prosecutors like the discretion (judges
sentence within guidelines determined by
offense)
5. Conclusion: Legal definition of
WMD is political, not technical

Compare



Media (inconsistent, anything “big” looks like
WMD)
Law (very broad definition to maximize
prosecutorial discretion)
Is there a more logical approach?
C. The Logic of “Weapons of Mass
Destruction”
1.
Characteristics
a.
b.
c.
2.
3.
Potential to cause mass casualties
Distinct from “conventional” weapons
Violate international norms
Logic: Definition primarily revolves
around social perception of weapons
rather than weapon characteristics
Evidence: What counts as “WMD
terrorism?”
Examples of “WMD Terrorism”





1984: Rajneeshee cult attacks in The
Dalles, Oregon with Typhoid (no deaths)
and Salmonella (750 poisoned, no deaths)
1994: Aum Shinrikyo Attacks Matsumoto
neighborhood with Sarin nerve gas, kills 7
1995: Aum Shinrikyo attacks Tokyo
subway with Sarin nerve gas, kills 12
2001: Anthrax-laced letters kill five in USA
2007: Three chlorine-laced bombs kill 11
in Iraq
NOT “WMD Terrorism”




1824: Suspected Albanians or Wahabbis
detonate armory in Egypt; perhaps 4000
killed
1978: Extremists suspected of arson of
theater in Iran that kills 477
2001: Al-Qaeda crashes four airliners into
buildings, killing about 3000
2004: Russians storm terrorist-held school
in Beslan, leading to 366 deaths
D. Applying a “Social Norms”
Definition: “WMD” ≠ WMD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Nuclear weapons – Uniquely horrifying (see many
specific nuke-only agreements, fear of radiation)
Biological weapons – Potentially deadly and
inherently indiscriminate. Again, triggers
international horror
Chemical weapons – Little worse than conventional
weapons (if at all) but images and casualties create
horror (even Hitler refuses to use gas in war after
being gassed himself)
Not “WMD” – Conventional (Cluster Bombs, MOAB,
Fuel-Air Explosives, AK-47) or Unconventional but
not horrific (E-Bomb)
Tough cases: Borderline chemical weapons (White
Phosphorous, Napalm), Radiological weapons (“Dirty
Bombs,” Depleted Uranium)
E. Terminology
Chemical (CW)
Radiological
Biological (BW)
Nuclear
E. Terminology
Chemical (CW)
CBW (Chemical
and Biological
Warfare)
Biological (BW)
E. Terminology
Chemical (CW)
NBC
(Nuclear,
Biological,
Chemical)
Nuclear
Biological (BW)
E. Terminology
Chemical (CW)
ABC
(Atomic,
Biological,
Chemical)
Nuclear
Biological (BW)
E. Terminology
Radiological
Chemical (CW)
CBRN
(Chemical,
Biological,
Radiological,
Nuclear)
Nuclear
Biological (BW)
II. The International Politics of
WMD
A.
Benefits of WMD Programs – and
associated problems
1.
Deterrence – Prevent attacks by rational
opponents by making costs of attack exceed
benefits
a.
b.
Problem: Countries don’t like being deterred
(China vs. Taiwan, US vs. Iran). May encourage
preventive war.
Problem: Mutual deterrence strategies increase
costs of war if opponent becomes irrational and
attacks anyway.
2. Warfighting: Winning Battles and
Forcing Surrender
a.
b.
Problem: Best weapons for deterrence
may not be best for battles.
Problem: Best strategies for warfighting
may prevent war termination, increasing
costs of war.
3. Bargaining: Trade WMD
programs for concessions
a.
b.
Problem: Reputation concerns mean
negotiations are never strictly bilateral.
Concessions encourage others to develop
WMD.
Problem: Trust increases negotiation
success – but WMD programs undermine
trust.
4. Status: International recognition
and prestige (i.e. the P5 and
nuclear weapons)
a.
b.
Problem: The P5 were the P5 before
nuclearization. Effect mistaken for
cause?
Problem: International efforts to curb
WMD are designed to stigmatize new
proliferation.
B. Costs of WMD Programs
1.
Resources / Opportunity Costs – The
money, talent, leadership effort, and
other resources put into WMD might be
better spent on development (Guns vs.
Butter theories) or conventional arms.
2. Hostility and Arms Races

WMD proliferation can provoke counterproliferation. Nuclear weapons example:





US develops in fear of pre-emption by
Germany – Uses them to threaten USSR
USSR develops in fear of attack by US – Uses
them to threaten China
China develops in fear of attack by US (and
later USSR) – Becomes threat to India
India develops in fear of China – Becomes
threat to Pakistan
Pakistan develops in fear of India
3. Opprobrium and Sanctions


Many agreements and laws call for types
of sanctions against those that try to
acquire WMD.
Even absent sanctions, states face
criticism for WMD programs. (Remember,
part of the REAL meaning of WMD is the
stigma attached to the weapons).
C. When will benefits outweigh costs?
When states are HIGHLY concerned with:



Being attacked
Losing the resulting war
Having no allies or influence to save them
And states are NOT worried about



The opportunity costs (wealthy OR insulated from
public welfare concerns)
Arms races (rivals already have WMD or are unable
to acquire them)
Opprobrium (state is already friendless or under
sanctions)
Which states meet these criteria today?
III. Problems of WMD
A.
Which weapons are considered WMD
(already answered!) and how are their
effects similar to – or different from – those
of conventional weapons?
1.
2.
3.
Chemical weapons – are they worse than high
explosives?
Biological weapons – can they accomplish
missions which conventional weapons cannot?
Nuclear weapons – are they just “bigger
bombs” – or something qualitatively different?
B. In what ways – and why -- do
international laws and international
institutions treat WMD differently
from other weapons?
1.
2.
3.
4.
What international laws govern WMD?
What are the loopholes in these laws?
How did these laws come about?
How is the nonproliferation system maintained?
C. How does the possession of WMD by
nations or their adversaries affect the
decisions that those nations make?
1.
2.
3.
4.
What doctrines govern the use of WMD?
What determines which doctrines a state
will adopt?
Do states with WMD behave differently?
Are states with WMD treated differently?
D. When and under what circumstances are
WMD likely to be used, and what are the
likely consequences?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Are some states more likely than others
to use WMD?
What is the likelihood of accidental or
unauthorized use?
What are the effects of WMD on the
battlefield, political negotiation, and
civilians?
How do wars fought with WMD end?