The Politics of Weapons of Mass Destruction

1
The Politics of Weapons of Mass Destruction

• The Creation of a Threat

2
I. Defining the Phrase

• What is the best way to define Weapons of Mass
  Destruction?

3
A. Origins of the Phrase

• Origin unknown Possibly used as early as 1937
• Increased use in 1990s. Substitute for Soviet
  threat?
• Two connotations
• Deadliness These weapons can cause mass
  destruction
• Concentration A little WMD goes a long way
• Which weapons qualify?

4
B. Recent Media Reports Unclear

• Weapon of Mass Destruction Washington Post
  headline about the AK-47, Nov 26 2006

5
Nuclear Weapons
6
Radiological Weapons
7
Cluster Bombs
8
Daisy Cutters / MOAB
9
White Phosphorous
10
Depleted Uranium
11
Poison Gas
12
EMP Weapons (E-Bombs)
13
Napalm
14
Fuel-Air Explosives
15
Biological Weapons
16
Radiological Weapons (Dirty Bombs)
17
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

18
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

19
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.

20
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.

21
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.

22
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

23
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)

24
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?

25
C. The Logic of Weapons of Mass Destruction

• Characteristics
• 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?

26
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

27
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

28
D. Applying a Social Norms Definition WMD ?
WMD

• 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)

29
E. Terminology
30
E. Terminology
CBW (Chemical and Biological Warfare)
31
E. Terminology
32
E. Terminology
33
E. Terminology
CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear)
34
II. The International Politics of WMD

• Benefits of WMD Programs and associated
  problems
• Deterrence Prevent attacks by rational
  opponents by making costs of attack exceed
  benefits
• Problem Countries dont 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.

35
2. Warfighting Winning Battles and Forcing
Surrender

• Problem Best weapons for deterrence may not be
  best for battles.
• Problem Best strategies for warfighting may
  prevent war termination, increasing costs of war.

36
3. Bargaining Trade WMD programs for concessions

• 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.

37
4. Status International recognition and prestige
(i.e. the P5 and nuclear weapons)

• Problem The P5 were the P5 before
  nuclearization. Effect mistaken for cause?
• Problem International efforts to curb WMD are
  designed to stigmatize new proliferation.

38
B. Costs of WMD Programs

• 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.

39
2. Hostility and Arms Races

• WMD proliferation can provoke counter-proliferatio
  n. 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

40
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).

41
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?

42
III. Problems of WMD

• Which weapons are considered WMD (already
  answered!) and how are their effects similar to
  or different from those of conventional
  weapons?
• 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?

43
B. In what ways and why -- do international
laws and international institutions treat WMD
differently from other weapons?

• What international laws govern WMD?
• What are the loopholes in these laws?
• How did these laws come about?
• How is the nonproliferation system maintained?

44
C. How does the possession of WMD by nations or
their adversaries affect the decisions that those
nations make?

• 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?

45
D. When and under what circumstances are WMD
likely to be used, and what are the likely
consequences?

• 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?