Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

A relatively new term, initially used in civilian policy talk, but passing to the military terminology in the 1990s, that refers to a class of weapons able to destroy a large number of people and cause other damage of catastrophic size, out of proportion to their limited size and cost. The use of delivery systems to place these weapons on or near targets usually does not form part of the term or its discussion.

Despite significant success in the use of international accords to reduce the danger of the employment or export of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their component materials and technologies, increased attention to terrorism in recent years has caused considerable apprehension and debate over the real and perceived threats that these weapons pose.

Origins of WMD

The U.S. military establishment defines WMD as weapons capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a way that can destroy large numbers of people. WMD can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, but the term generally excludes the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon.

The origins of the term WMD in current usage probably relates to a perception that the public remained insensitive to the dangers of chemical and biological warfare. Decades of living under Cold War conditions had raised awareness of nuclear weapons, and the public certainly recognized the need to control and dissuade their use at nearly any cost. However, the same public awareness was not apparent for chemical or biological weapons.

The armed forces, for an equally long time, had used the term nuclear-biological-chemical (NBC) in its basic training and in the organization and training of damage control and monitoring teams. In European parlance, the term was chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR). However, the expertise for each type of warfare resided in separate branches of the services.

Ultimately, the terminology of WMD probably came into being to bring the dangers of chemical and biological attack home to the public and to highlight the importance of impending treaty negotiations on chemical and biological warfare. WMD as a term is close enough to MAD, or mutually assured destruction, a nuclear doctrine of the early Cold War era, to attract appropriate attention.

Assessing the Problem

Apart from the origins of the term WMD, its usage remains fraught with ambiguities and potential error. In support of its usage, authorities have cited endless studies illustrating how a small amount of anthrax spores (a potential biological weapon) could kill 600,000 people in New York City, or how a few milli-liters of nerve agent (a potential chemical weapon) could kill more than 100,000 persons. Such laboratory specifications can never be matched in the field, however, because of the problems of dispersal, weather conditions, and the random protection level of the target population.

The 1995 attack on the Tokyo subway by the Japanese Aum Shinrikyo terrorist group demonstrated very limited lethality for such an ideal target. Moreover, the nonhuman damage of the chemical-biological branch of WMD seldom registers any grave danger. There is a contamination problem, to be sure, but buildings, vehicles, and other infrastructure can be decontaminated and renovated, and damaged crops and animal herds can be disposed of, by using techniques and procedures that are well-known and available.

...