nuclear-news

Reasons to treat chemical weapons differently from nuclear weapons

Treat Chemical Weapons Differently From Nuclear Weapons. HUFFINGTON POST  Scott Sigmund Gartner Professor of International Affairs at Penn State’s School of International Affairs 08/30/2013   The Obama administration has dug itself a hole in Syria by treating chemical weapons like nuclear weapons. While both are weapons of mass destruction, they are critically different on three key dimensions.These dimensions should shape U.S. chemical weapons policy in Syria now and with other countries in the future.

First, although nuclear weapons have not been used since World War II, chemical weapons have been employed in virtually every type of conflict, including interstate wars (Iran-Iraq), civil wars (Yemen), terrorist attacks (Japan), and by individuals (U.S.). Thus, rather than violating a rarely crossed “red line,” Syrian gas reflects an all-too-familiar, fatal pattern, making absolute prohibitions likely to lead to the problematic dilemma currently facing the Obama administration.

Second, the nuclear club continues to grow (North Korea, possibly Iran soon), but the number of states possessing chemical weapons and the size of their stockpiles has recently begun to shrink — and shrink radically. Compared to nukes, chemical weapons have less ego attached to them; countries can give them up without a loss of face or dramatic concerns about their security. Responses to chemical weapons use need to keep in mind both who currently has them and who eliminated these weapons of mass destruction.

August 31, 2013 - Posted by Christina MacPherson | 2 WORLD, USA, weapons and war