STANFORD DAILY

 

Guest Column

On

CBW

 

An opinion was expressed in
Friday’s Daily by Gary Alderman
that chemical and biological
warfare (CBW) research should be
supported, on the grounds that it

offers a more humane means of .

combat than do conventional
weapons. While it is true that a
war waged with chemical or
biological agents could be less
brutal than traditional military
encounters have been, there are
nevertheless some very important
reasons for opposing CBW
research at Stanford, at SRI, and
at anywhere else in this country
or in the more than a dozen other
nations engaging in it. :

Since Alderman was
specifically trying to avoid the
issue of the morality of war, I will
not consider the opposition to
CBW research on the grounds that
it is one more means by which
war or its threat is perpetuated,
although. I consider such: an
objection valid. There are in fact
many other reasons for opposing
CBW, arguments which I feel
should be compelling to people of
all political persuasions. se

It should be noted first of all
that much CBW research is not
concerned with incapacitating
agents. Nerve gas kills. Anthrax
kills. If these agents are not going
to be used by the U.S., why does
it make and store them? And if
they are merely on hand as
deterrents, then why are they
publicized so much less than are
other weapons, such as nuclear
warheads?

CBW poses perhaps the greatest
threat of any type of weapon to
non-combatants. This threat
looms on two fronts. On one
front, there is the danger to
civilians residing in a country
which. is engaging in CBW
research, Two examples occurring
in this country suffice to make
the point: (a) Thousands of sheep
died in Utah last year as a result

By Andy Smith

. of a nerve gas accident traced to

Dugway Proving Grounds, an
Army CBW installation. Only the
particular weather conditions
present at the time prevented.
exposure of this highly lethal
chemical to people in nearby
communities. (b) Several
thousand cases of viral infections
resulting from laboratory
accidents have been recorded in
this country, many the result of

CBW research. An infected but ©

unknowing scientist might start a
community epidemic as a result of

‘such a mishap.

On the second ‘front, there is
the danger to the civilian
population in a country in which
CBW is being used. The dispersal
of CBW agents is often highly
dependent on ambient weather
conditions, so that a sudden
change
example, could result in a mass
exposure of the agent to civilians,
while leaving the enemy
unharmed, Another example can
be seen today in Vietnam, where
current crop destruction programs
take their greatest toll in the
civilian ranks, rather than in those
of the healthy fighting men who

are better able to withstand
deprivation.
There are many possible

long-range effects of CBW, which
either cannot be predicted in
advance, . or which might be
ignored .by the military in the
interest of expediency. An island
which -was exposed to anthrax
during World War II is. still
uninhabitable today. Defoliating
agents used in Vietnam may result
in’ permanent environmental
unbalances which were not
foreseen when these agents were
tested in a non-tropical setting.

in’ wind direction, for ©

Perhaps the most frightening
aspect of CBW is that effective
defenses to it do not exist. When
one recalls the little effect
forewarning of the arrival. of Hong
Kong Flu in this country had on
the eventual epidemic, it should
be apparent that we are in real
trouble if a virus gets loose which
a) is lethal, b) is resistant to
common antibiotics, c) results in
atypical symptoms, d) is spread
over wide areas of the country,
perhaps by living vectors, such as
insects, and e) is sent without
forewarning.

Anyone who really thinks that
CBW can usher in an age of
‘“Shumane warfare’’ should
remember: that chemical and
biological agents were originally
developed for the same reason
that all other weapons advances
have been made—military
one-up-manship. The Ameérican
build-up began when it became
clear that other countries had
started such research. The military
will use CBW for what it considers
its best tactical advantage, and not
for any moral purpose. .

There is no evidence to suggest.

that a force of fighting men, in
the heat of battle, is going to
worry too much about how it

PAGE THREE

overcomes the enemy, If the latter
ean be driven from a tunnel with
tear gas, fine; if so much tear gas
is needed that the opposing
soldiers are permanently blinded,
that will not matter; and if lethal
nerve gas must be resorted to, that
is also all right.

Alderman’s recollection that
“the ancient. Greeks used a
choking fog against the Persians
instead of skewering them on
pikes” obscures the issue. Fog was -
used because it was more
effective, not because it was more
humanitarian. It the Greeks had
had nerve gas available, be sure
that they would have used it.

(Andy Smith is a grad student
in Neurological Sciences— Ed.)