Advertisement

Framing the Opportunities and the Challenges

  • Margaret Kosal
Chapter

Abstract

From the chlorine gas attacks of World War I through the biological threats of the Cold War to the present day, defense against chemical and biological (CB) weapons has been a part of the US national security strategy. While advances in defensive technology have clearly improved, some capabilities have not changed markedly in nearly 20 years and a few that have changed very little in 60 years or more. The last decade, however, has brought an intersection of two key drivers that require a completely new way to look at CB defense and the challenges of CB proliferation. The first, the changing nature of the threat to the USA and its allies began with the fall of the Soviet Union and was magnified greatly by the events of September 11, 2001. Second is the shifting nature of technological progress that brings entirely new capabilities, many of which are no longer the exclusive domain of the USA. These drivers – ranging from the depth of biological research in the former Soviet Union to the rise of asymmetric attacks – offer new opportunities and new challenges for CB defense.

Keywords

National Security Homeland Security Hedging Strategy Nanotechnology Research National Nanotechnology Initiative 
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.

Notes and References

  1. 1.
    Krulak CC (1999) The strategic corporal: Leadership in the three block war. Marine Magazine. http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/strategic_corporal.htm Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Office of the Director of National Defense (2007) Unclassified key judgments of the national intelligence estimate, prospects for Iraq’s stability: A challenging road ahead. http://www.dni.gov. Accessed 30 June 2008Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Research Council (2006) Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences. National Academies Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Within this text, the dual-use and the dual-use conundrum refers to the fact that almost all the equipment and materials needed to develop dangerous or offensive agents, particularly biological and chemical agents, have legitimate uses in a wide range of scientific research and industrial activity, including defensive military uses. Within this text, it does not refer to the demarcation between civilian and military uses.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
     5. National Research Council (2004) Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. National Academies Press. http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309089778/html/. Accessed 30 June 2008Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiarelli PW, Smith SM (2007) Learning from our modern wars: The imperatives of preparing for a dangerous future. Mil. Rev. 2–15Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dana Priest “Archive of Al Qaeda Videotapes Broadcast; Dogs Shown Dying from Toxic Vapor,” The Washington Post, 21 August 2002, p. A13.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Report to the president (unclassified) (2005) Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction. http://www.wmd.gov/report/index.html. Accessed 30 June 2008Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    US Senate Report on Pre-War Intelligence on Iraq (2006) Select Committee on Intelligence. http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tucker JB (2000) Toxic Terror: Assessing Terrorist Use of Chemical and Biological Weapons. MIT Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Department of Defense Directive 3000.05 (2005) Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations. Issued on 28 November.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    US Army Field Manual (2006) Insurgency FM 3–24. http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/Repository/Materials/COIN-FM 3-24.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Joint publication 3-05: Doctrine for joint special operations (2003) http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp3_05.pdf Joint Chiefs of Staff. Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelley RE (2000) US Army special forces unconventional warfare doctrine: Engine of change or relic of the past?. U.S. Naval War College. http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA378713 Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Metz S and Millen R (2004) Insurgency and counterinsurgency in the 21st century: Reconceptualizing threat & response. Strategic Studies Institute. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB586.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ucko D (2008) Innovation or inertia: The U.S. military and the learning of counterinsurgency. Orb. 52:2.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rennstich JK (2008) The making of a digital world: The evolution of technological change and how it shaped our world. Palgrave MacMillan, New York.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    National security and threat of climate change. CNA (2007) http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/SecurityandClimate_Final.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mapping the global future: Report of the national intelligence council’s 2020 project NIC 2004-13. Government Printing Office # 041-015-00240-6 (2004). http://www.foia.cia.gov/2020/2020.pdf. Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Josh Wolfe “Decoding Future Nanotech Investment Success,” Forbes/Wolfe Nanotech Report, 10 October 2002.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    National Research Council (2006) A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feynman R (1959) There’s plenty of room at the bottom: An invitation to enter a new field of physics. Zyvex. http://www.zyvex.com/nanotech/feynman.html Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Drexler KE (1981) Molecular engineering: An approach to time development of general capabilities for molecular manipulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (PNAS) 78:5275–5278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Purcell EM (1977) Life at low Reynolds number. Am. J. Phys. 45:3–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Research Council (2006) A Matter of Size: Triennial Review of the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Washington, DC., National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zhang S (2003) Fabrication of novel biomaterials through molecular self-assembly. Nat. Biotech. 21:1171–1178. http://web.mit.edu/lms/www/PDFpapers/Zhang_NatureBio78D70.pdf Accessed June 30 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    European Union (2004) Towards a European strategy for nanotechnology. http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/pdf/nano_com_en_new.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Government of Japan (2001) Japan 2nd S&T Plan (2001–2005). http://www8.cao.go.jp/cstp/english/basic/2nd-BasicPlan_01–05.html Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bai C (2005) Ascent of nanoscience in China. Science. 309: 61–63. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/309/5731/61 Accessed June 30 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Appelbaum RP, Gereffi G, Parker R et al (2006) From cheap labor to high-tech leadership: Will China’s investment in nanotechnology pay off?. Constituting Globalization: Actors, Arenas, and Outcomes. http://www.cggc.duke.edu/pdfs/workshop/Appelbaum%20et%20al_SASE%202006_China%20nanotech_27%20June%2006.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hariharan K (2005) Governments lead the charge for nano’s development in Asia. Small Times.http://www.smalltimes.com/articles/article_display. cfm?Section=ARCHI&C=RD&ARTICLE_ID=270161&p=109 Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Iranian Nanotechnology Initiative (http://www.nano.ir/, English language site: http://nano.ir/en/), Islamic Republic News Agency “President Calls for Setting up of National Nanotechnology Organ” 15 July 2006 (http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0607158657171656.htm).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nanotechnology Policy Studies Committee, Available at http://www.tco.ac.ir/nano/Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    RIA Novosti (2007) Putin vows to bankroll nanotechnology, stresses payoff. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070418/63882148.html Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Associate Press (2007) Russia to invest over US$1 billion in nanotechnology in next three years. International Herald Tribune. http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/18/technology/EU-TEC-Russia-Nanotechnology.php Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Reuters (2007) Putin promotes nanotechnology in Russia. http://www.javno.com/en/economy/clanak.php?id=36370 Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    “Nanotechnology and Global Security,” (Palo Alto, CA; Fourth Foresight Conference on Molecular Nanotechnology), 9 November 1995.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Howard S (2002) Nanotechnology and mass destruction: The need for an inner space treaty. Disarm. Dipl. 65.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Altmann J (2004) Military uses of nanotechnology: Perspectives and concerns. Secur. Dialogue 35:61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pardo-Guerra, Pablo J, Aguayo AF (2005) Nanotechnology and the international regime on chemical and biological weapons. Nanotechnology, Law & Business 2:1.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Break-out group discussion on the potential for misuses of nanotechnology, held at the Workshop on Ethical Aspects of Nanotechnology, January 11–12, 2007, Arizona State University, Tempe.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Raffensberger C and Tickner J (eds.) (1999) Protecting Public Health and the Environment: Implementing the Precautionary Principle. Island Press, Washington, DC. The precautionary principle states that if the results of a research program might cause severe or irreversible harm to the public, in the absence of a scientific consensus that harm would not ensue, the burden of proof falls on those who advocate undertaking the research.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    National Research Council (2004) Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism. National Academies Press. http://fermat.nap.edu/books/0309089778/html/ Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    National Research Council (2006) Globalization, Biosecurity, and the Future of the Life Sciences. National Academies Press, Washington DC.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Petro JB, Plasse TR, and Mcnulty JA (2003) Biotechnology: Impact on biological warfare and biodefense. Biosecur. Bioterror.: Biodef. Strat., Pract. Sci. 1–3:161–168.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Central Intelligence Agency (2003) The darker bioweapons future. http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/bw1103.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Lind WS, Nightengale K, Schmitt JF et al (1989) The changing face of war: Into the fourth generation. Marine Corps Gazette.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Colonel Barry Lowe, USA “A Warfighter’s Perspective on Possible Nanotechnology Applications for CBRNE/WMD Operations,” Commander Michael Penny, USN “Military Operator’s View for Marine Chemical and Biological Incident Response Force (CBIRF),” and Major General John Doesburg, USA (ret), “Bridging Science and Military Operations,” 30 January 2007, Nanotechnology for Chemical and Biological Defense 2030 Workshop, Santa Fe NM.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    The Minerals Metals, & Materials Society (2004) The journal talks with the U.S. Department of Defense’s John H Hopps Jr. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0404/Hopps-0404.html Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Bush V (1945) Science: The endless frontier. United States Government Printing Office. http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    McKitrick J, Blackwell J, Littlepage F et al (1995) The revolution in military affairs. In: Schneider BR, Grinter LE (eds.) Battlefield of the Future: 21st Century Warfare Issues. Air University Press, Maxwell AFB.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Cohen EA (1996) A revolution in warfare. Foreign Aff. 75: 41.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Hammes TX, “Fourth Generation Warfare Evolves, Fifth Emerges,” Milit. Rev., May–June 2007, http://usacac.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/MayJun07/Hammes.pdf Accessed June 30, 2008.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Defense Science Board 2006 Summer Study on 21St Century Technology Vectors, February 2007, 4 volumes (http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2006-02-Summer_Study_Strategic_Tech_Vectors_Vol_I_Web.pdf and http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2006-02-Summer_Study_Strategic_Tech_Vectors_Vol_II_Web.pdf). Accessed June 30 2008.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    US Department of Defense (2006) Quadrennial Defense Review Report. http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/report/Report20060203.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Committee on the Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century (2007) Rise above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. National Academies Press. http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463 Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Peterson JL and Egan DM (2002) Small security: Nanotechnology and future defense. Def. Horiz. 8: 1–6.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Ratner D and Ratner M (2003) Nanotechnology and homeland security. Prentice Hall PTR, Upper Saddle River.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry, Supplement to the President’s FY 2007 Budget, http://www.nano.gov/NNI_07Budget.pdfGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    National Nanotechnology Initiative: Research and Development Leading to a Revolution in Technology and Industry Supplement to the President’s FY08 Budget, August 2007, http://nano.gov/NNI_08Budget.pdfGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Department of Peace Studies of the University of Bradford (2008) The biological and toxin weapons convention website. http://www.opbw.org/ Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    OPCW (2008) Organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons. http://www.opcw.org/ Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    The White House (2006) The National Security Strategy. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006 Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    The White House (2002) The National Security Strategy of the United States. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    The White House (2004) Biodefense for the 21st Century. http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/20040430.html Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    The White House (2002) National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/WMDStrategy.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Joint Chiefs of Staff (2004) The National Military Strategy of the United States of America. http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2005/d20050318nms.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Joint Chiefs of Staff (2006) National Military Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. http://www.defenselink.mil/pdf/NMS-CWMD2006.pdf Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Department of Defense (2006) Quadrennial Defense Review Report. http://www.defenselink.mil/qdr/ Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    The National Strategy for Homeland Security (2002) http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/ Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Department of Homeland Security (2004) Securing our homeland. http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/strategicplan Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Government Printing Office (2008) Budget of the United States Government. http://origin.www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/ Accessed 30 June 2008.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia Institute of TechnologySam Nunn School of International Affairs Center for International StrategyMariettaUSA

Personalised recommendations