Arms Control & Disarmament Thread for WMDs (Chemical & Biological Weapons included)

[SABRE]

This thread is designed for discussion on Arms Control and Disarmament Affairs/Agreements regarding WMDs. Although we usually count Nuclear Weapons (all varients) as WMDs lets count Chemical and Biological weapons in this catogary as well. It is preferred that all discussion that fall under this category be discussed here rather then opening up new threads.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Latest update:

* Central Asian Republics (CARs) form Nuclear Weapons Free Zone (CANWFZ).

- Kazakhstan ratified the treaty on Dec 11th and thus the treaty Entered Into Force (EIF) in January 2009.

-The treaty asserts that the five CARs will not to manufacture, acquire, test, or possess nuclear weapons and to use nuclear materials only for peaceful purposes.

- All five countries must conclude an additional protocol to their safeguards agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) within 18 months of the treaty entering into force.

- Requires its members to comply with the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

- Treaty requires the states to meet international standards for the protection of physical material

- France, UK and USA refuse to lend support to the treaty (as most of the NWFZ treaty calls upon them to do so) amid fears that Russia might be able to deploy Nuclear Weapons in the region regardless of the agreement.

> CANWFZ is 4th Nuclear Weapon Free Zone to enter into Force.

Importance: Central Asia is surrounded by Nuclear Weapons states such as Russia, China, Pakistan and India while Iran may be pursuing nuclear weapons. Moreover US has strong presence in Afghanistan while neighboring continent of Europe has two nuclear powers; UK and France.

 

[SABRE]

• GENEVA PROTOCOL 1925:

Singed: 17th June 1925
EIF: 1928

Ø[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]It prohibits the use of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, & of bacteriological methods of warfare.

• BIOLOGICAL & TOXIN WEAPONS CONVENTION, BTWC

Opened for signature: 10th April 1972
Place(s): London. Moscow & Washington D.C
EIF: 26th March 1975
Depository States: UK, USA & USSR/Russia

Ø[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]It prohibits the development, production, stockpiling or acquisition by other means or retention of microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types & in quantities that have no justification of prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes, as well as weapons equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purpose in armed conflict.

Ø[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The destruction of the agents, toxins, weapons, equipment & means of delivery in the possession of the parties, or their diversion to peaceful purpose, should be effected not later than 9 months after EIF of the convention for each country.

• CHEMICAL WEAPONS CONVENTION

Opened for signature: 13th Jan 1993
EIF: 29th April 1997
Dep: UNSG

Ø[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]It prohibits the use, development, production, acquisition, transfer & stockpiling of chemical weapons.

Ø[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Each party undertakes to destroy its chemical weapons & production facilities within 10 years of EIF of the treaty.

 

[haveblue128]

Arms Control on Hold: Where are We Now?

In an attempt to kick-up the dust on the thread, read on. Regardless of the discussion of treaties, NPT in specific, most of them lie in a garbage heap-either unsigned by major nations, or 3rd world problem countries trying to develop multiple types of WMD without robust industrial bases or military C3.
BTW-The US aided Kazakhstan in becoming nuke free. We agreed to take over their entire stock of fissile materials soon after the Soviet Union collapsed. They were concerned they could not maintain positive control and didn't want nukes based at multiple facilities going back to Russia. Some of this was ABM work being done on the shores of Lake Balkhash. Without further comment, NPT and START-next round. Dead on arrival?

_____________________________________________________________
The Bush administration dumped arms control over the side when they came into office. That action put yet another nail in the coffin of the NPT. While the Obama admin is trying hard to revive it and get the next round of START negotiations moving forward between the Russia, the US Senate will not allow any forward motion on treaties. Sec State Clinton is working on this matter along senior staff and DOD Chief Bob Gates

I would like to see some of the Russians whose presence is felt strongly on many forums to make comment on these issues. At present, the biggest problem all nuke powers and most of the world community has is agreeing on a strategy to deal with many third nations working on nukes. It is the shortest route to be dealt into what was once a stable 5-nation poker game. Interesting that while much saber rattling has occurred, none of the self-proclaimed nuke powers such as Iran and N. Korea has an advanced industrial base, funding and technical knowledge needed to create a significant nuclear threat. Recent reports note that Iran’s enrichment cascades are deteriorating fast. Where they really stand is anyone’s guess, but all nations hope that Israel will hold fire if they determine that this activity is taking on a serious face beyond the present posturing and rhetoric. . India and Pakistan are a different issue, but after each nation successfully tested a nuke bomb, they both started talking about signing the NPT. We know that Israel has successfully weaponized nukes although even their hardware is low-tech.

This leaves me where I began. Asking where does the world stand in regards to unstable nations owning nukes. While it would be impossible for the 5-nuke powers to dictate the terms by which any new members of the "Nuke Club,” the question is who can we trust-it may not be for us to decide. However, if one of the new nuke nations were to undertake an IAEA overseen demonstration of robust C3, perhaps that would help with this otherwise destabilizing problem. One thing is certain: The US will continue to develop a ballistic missile defense program. Given the fact that the majority of arms control treaties are ineffective or simply ignored by the problem nations, or potential "sub-national" actors-terrorists-[the latter would likely use any on which they get their hands]-it is incumbent on the nuclear powers and the IAEA to take stock of the present world situation regarding nukes. At present, none of the nations outside of the 5 Country Nuke Club has been able to translate their desire for nukes into weaponized hardware that is ready to go. A failure rate of near 100 percent helps me to sleep better at night at least for now. What the future holds is anyone’s guess. I hope this generates some interest in this thread-- some serious thought would be different. Given the amount of rhetorical hot air that has been blown over Russia’s-Indian 5th Gen Fighter, it’s time to change the subject. To date, the specs on this aircraft are not wildly impressive and don’t come close to the F-22. (That will create debate if nothing more.) If Russia is co-developing this aircraft with India, two things must be true: 1) Russia’s defense industrial base is in disrepair; 2) Given this is the first major aerospace platform that has been co-developed, Russia’s finances cannot be good. Just a few thoughts after watching the 5th G Fighter thread for some time. I will be adding a long piece on that thread soon. The recently announced mufti-billion dollar deal between Russia and India that involves direct arms sales as well as support for India's nuclear infrastructure, it will raise the blood-pressure of many at DOD. Arms control onward…..

 

[usachemo]

Mitt Romney's Comments on the New START Treaty

The current debate that has been going on over the last week regarding Mitt Romney's (R, MA) critique of the New START Treaty brings up some interesting questions about the future of our nuclear stockpile. Romney's comments, which can be read at the washington post online (I'm too new to put a link in my blog), blast President Obama for giving in to the Russians for little in real concessions by the Russians in return.

I tend to agree with Romney for a couple of reasons:

First and foremost, I don't think the Russians are to be trusted when it comes to nuclear weapons. The only reason that they ever fell behind us in the nuclear arms race is because they ran out of money. That is no longer the problem. Now that their economy is growing, due to their exportation of oil, they will try again to get the upper hand. We should not give in to their demands, especially when we are giving up more than they are. Plus, I think Romney is right about this new treaty seriously diminishing our missile defense plans.

Second, Romney is partially right about the tactical nukes issue, although I don't believe that there is such a thing as a tactical nuke (even the smallest yield nuke has strategic consequences). The Russians have the upper hand on us in this category. And while some may say that tactical nukes are not a problem because they can't reach us here, they can reach our allies in Europe and Asia and more importantly our troops that are deployed.

The New START Treaty has many issues that strike right at the heart of our national security. I hope congress gets the right information before that vote to ratify this mess.

MAJ John Snyder
Student, Intermediate Level Education
Command and General Staff College
Ft. Lee, VA

The views in this blog are the views of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.

 

[mahasvin]

hehe. Big aids to US foreign policy in the CA region

Since Kazakhstan was the 4th largest nuclear armoury in the world. And it IS now the world largest uranium producer. And now Russia lost test fields in Semipalatinsk in North Kazakhstan.

Is there any US base going to be established to help with "detention" in Kazakhstan?

 

[John Fedup]

China has a renewed interest in biological warfare, who would have thought? Clearly not western universities which have been falling over themselves recruiting Chinese students for life sciences studies. COVID has shown how effective biological weapons could be and although this virus is almost certainly natural it doesn’t take much imagination to see the merits in creating something like this along with a vaccine. The technology likely exists.

Can the world stop China’s surge into biological warfare?

China’s focus on genomic warfare has attracted the attention of both the FBI’s biological countermeasures unit and the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigation.

m.washingtontimes.com

 

[ngatimozart]

China has a renewed interest in biological warfare, who would have thought? Clearly not western universities which have been falling over themselves recruiting Chinese students for life sciences studies. COVID has shown how effective biological weapons could be and although this virus is almost certainly natural it doesn’t take much imagination to see the merits in creating something like this along with a vaccine. The technology likely exists.

Can the world stop China’s surge into biological warfare?

China’s focus on genomic warfare has attracted the attention of both the FBI’s biological countermeasures unit and the Air Force’s Office of Special Investigation.

m.washingtontimes.com

Of course they are and I bet Putin's Russia is as well. I would not be surprised if the US has a really black program on it as well. Biological and chemical weapons are a poor mans nukes and both, especially the biologics, are far more insidious. When I did my NBCD training it wasn't nukes that scared me, but the biologics that scared the hell out of me and still do.

 

[Todjaeger]

Of course they are and I bet Putin's Russia is as well. I would not be surprised if the US has a really black program on it as well. Biological and chemical weapons are a poor mans nukes and both, especially the biologics, are far more insidious. When I did my NBCD training it wasn't nukes that scared me, but the biologics that scared the hell out of me and still do.

Some of the chem stuff is also scary, since it can potentially linger for weeks. Not to mention some of the long-term effects of certain types of exposure causing mutagenic effects as well.

 

[SABRE]

Of course they are and I bet Putin's Russia is as well. I would not be surprised if the US has a really black program on it as well. Biological and chemical weapons are a poor mans nukes and both, especially the biologics, are far more insidious. When I did my NBCD training it wasn't nukes that scared me, but the biologics that scared the hell out of me and still do.

When I was doing work relating to multilateral export control regimes & received briefings on biological weapons, along with chemical and radiological weapons, it scared me too, more than the nukes.

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

The only U.S.-Russian arms control pact still standing is the New START nuclear agreement that expires in three weeks, and it does not look like it will be extended.

Russia follows US to withdraw from Open Skies Treaty

The treaty was intended to build trust between Russia and the West by allowing the accord’s more than three dozen signatories to conduct reconnaissance flights over each other’s territories.

www.defensenews.com

 

[ngatimozart]

The only U.S.-Russian arms control pact still standing is the New START nuclear agreement that expires in three weeks, and it does not look like it will be extended.

Russia follows US to withdraw from Open Skies Treaty

The treaty was intended to build trust between Russia and the West by allowing the accord’s more than three dozen signatories to conduct reconnaissance flights over each other’s territories.

www.defensenews.com

You know I don't like Trump at all and never have, but I do agree with him on this. The nuclear weapons treaties with USSR were great for the time and were required. However the USSR disappeared into the mists of time and other nuclear armed nations have arisen, such as India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea. Plus the other three nuclear powers, France, PRC, and the UK. Yet none of those nations were parties to any of the treaties and as such they could and do build and field any type of warhead and delivery system that they want to. Now both the US and Russia will be on equal footing with the others especially the PRC. Of course they have far more warheads but they are no longer hamstrung by types of warheads, numbers and delivery systems. In fact if Russia, PRC, and US build up their stock of warheads, it does make a nuclear war unwinnable.

 

[John Fedup]

Some additional information on the state of nuclear arms proliferation in this article, not all from traditional rivals but rather from allies. This could well be another serious $hit legacy (amongst many) from the the worst exit POTUS ever.

When Allies Go Nuclear

In both Asia and Europe, U.S. allies face a growing military threat from nuclear-armed powers.

www.foreignaffairs.com

 

[Sandhi Yudha]

Some additional information on the state of nuclear arms proliferation in this article, not all from traditional rivals but rather from allies. This could well be another serious $hit legacy (amongst many) from the the worst exit POTUS ever.

When Allies Go Nuclear

In both Asia and Europe, U.S. allies face a growing military threat from nuclear-armed powers.

www.foreignaffairs.com

"In Germany, doubts about the United States’ reliability have arisen within official circles, and a growing chorus of voices outside government has suggested possible alternatives to the U.S. nuclear guarantee. Some have proposed relying instead on a European nuclear umbrella composed of some combination of French and British capabilities, perhaps supported financially by Germany and other nonnuclear European countries. "
I dont see a problem in that, nuclear weapons still owned and controlled by France and GB, but financially supported by other European countries to be used as an independent nuclear umbrella.

With having neighbours like china and North-Korea, it is actually logic if South-Korea and Japan plan to develop their own nuclear arsenal.

 

[John Fedup]

Japan and SK developing WMDs might be not entirely due to fear of China and NK.

 

[ngatimozart]

Japan and SK developing WMDs might be not entirely due to fear of China and NK.

From the SK side that could be a valid argument, however I can't see it being a valid argument for the Japanese side. However if either or both developed nuclear weapons you can imagine the screeching of outright self-righteous indignation emanating from Beijing.

 

[John Fedup]

Agree, the SK attitude is more of a concern than Japan.

 

[SABRE]

If either or both Japan & RoK develop nuclear weapons than the international non-proliferation agenda will go down the drain. Other states with the capacity to develop nuclear weapons are likely to immediately reconsider their membership in the NPT. Those who don't have the capacity would start looking into tapping sources of nuclear and missile technologies. The Japanese have championed the non-proliferation since the beginning. They are unlikely to change their policy without coming across extraordinary circumstances and widespread domestic support for developing nukes. If DPRK acquiring nukes was not deemed as extraordinary circumstances than clearly the Japanese have stronger thresholds.

 

[John Fedup]

IMHO, Japan will develop WMD if the the US is perceived as likely to abandon allies. A NK bomb is a concern but much less so when NK knows full well the massive retaliation that would result in any use against Japan. The best hope for the NPT is a guarantee the US nuclear umbrella will be covering allies. US domestic politics may alter this guarantee.

 

[John Fedup]

Russia has rejected talks on future arms controls. Why the US would even bother us strange, Russia can’t be trusted and China isn’t interested either.

MSN

 

[KRAKATOA]

A NK bomb is a concern but much less so when NK knows full well the massive retaliation that would result in any use against Japan.

That's the point I'm worrying about. The US/NATO has displayed so much de-escalatory behaviour that it has emboldened the rogue nations. De-escalation might sound great on the short term, but it also signals unwillingness to intervene.