Advertisement

Negotiations to Control Chemical and Biological Warfare: The Post-World War II Years

  • Victor A. Utgoff

Abstract

After World War II chemical weapons disarmament did not get the attention it had received during the inter-war years as Hiroshima and Nagasaki had introduced the world to nuclear weapons, ‘the destructive power of which overshadowed everything else.’ 1 The United Nations did not even broach the topic of chemical warfare until the 1947–48 discussions on ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ which eventually were defined to include ‘lethal chemical and biological weapons.’ At the war’s end, the Geneva Protocol, the only international agreement prohibiting chemical weapon use, remained unratified by the US despite its acceptance by over 40 other nations prior to the war. In 1947, the US removed the Protocol from the Senate calendar and, some five years later, openly declared it obsolete.

Keywords

Nerve Agent Chemical Weapon Biological Weapon Biological Warfare Bilateral Talk 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes and References

  1. 21.
    William Epstein, ‘International Negotiations to Ban Chemical Weapons’, in Binary Weapons and the Problem of Chemical Disarmament: A Report Of The Committee On Chemistry And Public Affairs, compiled and edited by the Department of Chemistry and Public Affairs, American Chemical Society, Dec. 1977, p. 21.Google Scholar
  2. 26.
    Robert L. Bartley and William P. Kucewicz, ‘ “Yellow Rain” and the Future of Arms Agreements’, Foreign Affairs, Spring 1983, p. 806.Google Scholar
  3. 47.
    Bob Schweitz, ‘Soviet Officers: Missile–Site Inspections Possible’, Air Force Times, 6 May 1985, p. 19.Google Scholar
  4. 48.
    Stewart M. Powell, ‘Importance of on–site inspections: U.S. hopes to widen crack in previously iron–clad Soviet secrecy’, San Francisco Examiner, 24 Jan. 1988, p. 6.Google Scholar
  5. 49.
    Michael Gordon, ‘U.S. Group Can Study Soviet A–Test’, New York Times, 20 Dec. 1986, p. 8.Google Scholar
  6. 50.
    James A. Shear, ‘Even on the Scene, It’s Tough to Verify Arms Cuts’, Long Island Newsday, 15 April 1987, p. 73.Google Scholar
  7. 51.
    Elizabeth Pond, ‘New Soviet Proposals on Chemical Weapons and Arms in Space’, Christian Science Monitor, 7 Aug. 1987, p. 10.Google Scholar
  8. 52.
    Celestine Bohlen, ‘Soviets Allow Experts to Tour Chemical Weapons Facility’, Washington Post, 5 Oct. 1987, p. 17.Google Scholar
  9. Thomas J. Knudson, ‘Russians See Chemical Site In U.S. Desert’, New York Times, 20 Nov. 1987, p. 10.Google Scholar
  10. 54.
    Lois R. Ember, ‘Fashioning a Global Chemical Weapons Treaty’, Chemical and Engineering News, 28 Mar. 1988.Google Scholar
  11. 55.
    Jozef Goldblat, ‘Chemical Disarmament: From the Ban On Use To A Ban On Possession’, Background Paper Number 17, Canadian Institute For International Peace And Security, Feb. 1988, p. 3.Google Scholar
  12. 63.
    David Dickson, ‘Hopes Recede for Early Ban on Chemical Arms’, Science, 1 April 1988, p. 23.Google Scholar
  13. 64.
    Don Oberdorfer, ‘U.S. Soviets May Meet Soon on Curbing Chemical Arms’, Washington Post, 4 Jan. 1986, p. 1.Google Scholar
  14. 65.
    Charles W. Flowerree, ‘Elimination of Chemical Weapons: Is Agreement In Sight?’, Arms Control Today, April 1988, p. 9.Google Scholar
  15. 67.
    Jonathan Dean, ‘Chemical Weapons in Europe, A Missed Opportunity for Arms Control’, Arms Control Today, Sept. 1986, p. 14.Google Scholar
  16. 70.
    R. Jeffrey Smith, ‘Germ Warfare Treaty To Open Amid Suspicions’, Washington Post, 8 Sept. 1986, p. 6.Google Scholar
  17. 71.
    Nicolas Sims, Banning Germ Weapons: Can The Treaty Be Strengthened? ADIU Report (Armament & Disarmament Information Unit), Sept.–Oct. 1986, p. 1.Google Scholar
  18. 72.
    Joseph Finder, ‘Biological Warfare, Genetic Engineering, and the Treaty That Failed’, Washington Quarterly, Spring 1986, p. 5.Google Scholar
  19. 73.
    John Winters, ‘Incident in Urals Spurs U.S. Study of Germ Warfare’, Arizona Republic, Aug. 1982.Google Scholar
  20. 77.
    Elisa D. Harris, ‘Sverdlosk and Yellow Rain: Two Cases of Soviet Noncompliance?’, International Security, Spring 1987, vol. 11, no. 4, p. 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 79.
    Nicolas A. Sims, ‘Biological and Toxin Weapons: The 1986 Outcome’, Council For Arms Control Bulletin, Nov. 1986.Google Scholar
  22. 82.
    R. Jeffrey Smith and Philip J. Hilts, ‘Soviets Deny 1979 Outbreak Involved Germ Lab’, Washington Post, 13 April 1988, p. 4.Google Scholar
  23. 83.
    Don Oberdorfer, ‘U.S. Tests the Waters for Conference on Poison Gas’, Washington Post, 21 September 1988, p. 23.Google Scholar
  24. 84.
    Nathaniel Sheppard Jr., ‘French Urge War on Chemical Arms’, Chicago Tribune, 30 Sept. 1988, p. 3.Google Scholar
  25. 85.
    R. Jeffrey Smith, ‘Conferees Refuse to Name the Guilty’, Washington Post, 8 Jan. 1989, p. A24.Google Scholar
  26. 86.
    Edward Cody, ‘149 Nations Vow To Shun Poison Gas’, Washington Post, 12 Jan. 1989.Google Scholar
  27. 87.
    Michael Gordon, ‘Soviets To Start Trimming Arsenal of Chemical Weapons’, New York Times, 9 Jan. 1989, p. 1.Google Scholar
  28. 92.
    Paul Lewis, ‘Soviets, Welcoming Bush’s Plan on Chemical Arms Go Further’, New York Times (26 Sept. 1989), pp. 1, 16.Google Scholar
  29. R. Jeffrey Smith, ‘U.S. To Keep Producing Poison Gas’, Washington Post (9 Oct. 1989), pp. 1, 8.Google Scholar
  30. 93.
    Michael R. Gordon, ‘U.S. Asks Soviet To Agree To Cuts in Chemical Arms’, New York Times (25 September 1989), pp. 1, 12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Victor A. Utgoff 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor A. Utgoff
    • 1
  1. 1.Strategy, Forces and Resources DivisionInstitute for Defense AnalysesAlexandriaUSA

Personalised recommendations