Definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) refer to any weapon that can cause significant harm or destruction to human life, animals, or the environment. The term WMD is often used to describe nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that can potentially cause catastrophic harm on a large scale. According to Carus (2012), the definition of WMD includes any weapon that can cause mass casualties or destruction. This can include conventional weapons used in a manner that results in mass destruction or harm, such as using large amounts of explosives or toxic chemicals.
Okoro and Oluka (2019) also define WMD as weapons that have the potential to cause significant harm or destruction to human life, animals, or the environment. They note that using WMD in modern terrorism poses a significant threat to global security. This is because WMD can cause catastrophic harm and potentially disrupt social and economic systems, create political instability, and threaten international peace and security. The term WMD has been used extensively in the international community to refer to weapons that can cause mass destruction and casualties. These weapons not only pose a significant threat to human life but also to the environment, as they have the potential to cause long-lasting damage to ecosystems and natural resources.
Nuclear weapons are considered the most destructive WMDs, as they can cause mass destruction over a large area, leading to long-term environmental and health consequences. On the other hand, biological and chemical weapons can cause severe harm to human life and the environment by contaminating air, water, and soil, leading to long-lasting health effects and damage to natural resources. The use of WMDs, whether by nation-states or non-state actors, is considered a severe threat to global security and stability. The potential for such weapons to cause mass destruction and loss of life means that their proliferation and use must be carefully monitored and controlled. The international community has taken several steps to prevent the spread and use of WMDs, including treaties, agreements, and multilateral efforts aimed at disarmament and non-proliferation.
For example, Nuclear weapons leverage nuclear reactions to release vast amounts of energy, resulting in explosions that can cause mass destruction and death over large areas. Using nuclear weapons in war can cause catastrophic harm to the environment, human life, and infrastructure. On the other hand, biological weapons use bacteria, viruses, and other microorganisms to cause disease in humans, animals, or plants. They can be spread through the air, water, or food and are highly contagious. Using biological weapons can cause widespread illness, death, and panic. Chemical weapons are embedded with toxic chemicals that harm humans, animals, or plants. They can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through the skin, and can cause severe burns, respiratory problems, and other life-threatening injuries. The use of chemical weapons can also have long-term environmental effects, contaminating soil and water sources. Over the years, WMDs have been used in wars and have left trails of destruction and catastrophic devastations in the lives of humans, the environment and animals in equal measures. For instance, the use of nuclear weapons in World War II resulted in the deaths of over 200,000 people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan. The use of biological weapons in the past, such as the intentional spread of smallpox by European colonizers in the Americas, has caused widespread illness and death. The Chemical Weapons Convention, an international treaty signed by over 190 countries, prohibits producing, stockpiling, and using chemical weapons. The threat of terrorist groups obtaining and using weapons of mass destruction is a significant concern for global security. These weapons can cause catastrophic harm and disrupt social and economic systems.
Executive Order EO 12938
Executive Order 12938, signed by President Bill Clinton in 1994, imposes sanctions on foreign persons who engage in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their means of delivery. The order authorizes the U.S. government to freeze the assets of individuals and entities involved in WMD proliferation and to prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in any transactions with them (Pala, 2021). Specifically, the order prohibits any U.S. person from engaging in transactions with foreign persons who are determined:
- To have engaged in the proliferation of WMD or their means of delivery, including missiles and missile technology;
- To have provided support for the proliferation of WMD or their means of delivery;
- To have engaged in activities that undermine U.S. efforts to prevent WMD proliferation, including the transfer of goods, services, or technology that could contribute to such proliferation;
- To be owned or controlled by, or acting on behalf of, any of the above-mentioned foreign persons.
The sanctions authorized by EO 12938 include freezing the assets of foreign persons involved in WMD proliferation, prohibiting U.S. persons from engaging in any transactions with them and imposing travel restrictions on those persons(Fergusson et al., 2019). The order also authorizes the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General, to designate foreign persons who meet the criteria for sanctions. Once designated, the assets of these persons are frozen, and they are added to a list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) maintained by the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) (Fergusson et al., 2019). Therefore, EO 12938 represents the U.S. government’s efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by imposing sanctions on foreign persons involved in such activities.
Counter-Proliferation, Non-Proliferation and Consequence Management
Counter-proliferation, non-proliferation, and consequence management are three related but distinct concepts in the field of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and their associated risks. Here is a comparison of the terms, along with examples of each:
Counter-proliferation: Counter-proliferation refers to efforts to prevent the spread of WMDs and their means of delivery, including missiles and missile technology. This can involve various activities, such as intelligence gathering, interdiction of weapons shipments, and military operations against weapons facilities (Pilat & White, 2019). Counter-proliferation is often seen as a more proactive approach than non-proliferation, as it involves actively disrupting WMD acquisition or development by hostile states or non-state actors. Examples of counter-proliferation include; the Stuxnet computer virus, which the U.S. and Israel allegedly developed to disrupt Iran’s nuclear program by targeting its centrifuges. U.S. military strikes against suspected nuclear weapons facilities in Iraq in 1991 and Syria in 2007.
Non-proliferation: Non-proliferation refers to efforts to prevent WMD acquisition or development by states or non-state actors. This can involve diplomatic negotiations, arms control agreements, and other measures to limit WMD spread (Pilat & White, 2019). Non-proliferation is often seen as a more passive approach than counter-proliferation, as it involves working to prevent the acquisition or development of WMDs before they become a threat. Examples of non-proliferation include; the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and promote disarmament (Banzai, 2021). the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) prohibits the development, production, and stockpiling of chemical weapons.
Consequence management: Consequence management refers to efforts to respond to the aftermath of a WMD attack or other incident involving WMDs. This can involve various activities, such as search and rescue operations, medical treatment of victims, and decontaminating affected areas. Consequence management is focused on mitigating the effects of a WMD incident rather than preventing it. Examples of consequence management include; the U.S. government’s response to the 2001 anthrax attacks, which involved identifying and treating those exposed to the anthrax spores and decontaminating affected areas. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan in 2011 involved evacuating nearby residents, monitoring radiation levels, and providing medical treatment to those affected.
Comparing and Contrasting by A.J. Mauroni Articles
Both articles by A.J. Mauroni discuss strategies for countering the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but the perspectives and focus of the two articles differ. In the 2010 article, “A counter-WMD strategy for the future,” Mauroni outlines a comprehensive approach to WMD defense that includes prevention, detection, and response. He argues that a successful WMD defense strategy must be based on a clear understanding of the threat and involve cooperation between military, law enforcement, intelligence, and diplomatic agencies. The article primarily focuses on the potential threat posed by non-state actors and terrorist groups and emphasizes the need for flexible and adaptive response capabilities.
In the 2022 article, “Envisioning a New Strategy to Counter Great Power Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction,” Mauroni focuses on the threat posed by great powers, particularly China and Russia. He argues that the traditional deterrence approach through nuclear weapons may not be effective against these actors, who have developed advanced capabilities in areas such as cyber warfare and space-based systems. The article proposes a new strategy of “functional deterrence,” which involves targeting the specific capabilities that great powers rely on to project power and influence. This approach emphasizes the importance of intelligence gathering and analysis and developing new technologies to counter the threats posed by great powers.
In terms of perspective, Mauroni’s views have evolved since his 2010 article. While he still emphasizes the need for a comprehensive approach to WMD defense, his focus has shifted from the threat posed by non-state actors to the threat posed by great powers. His proposed strategy for countering the great power use of WMDs significantly differs from his earlier emphasis on flexible and adaptive response capabilities. Therefore, his perspective has changed, shifting from a more comprehensive and general approach to countering WMDs to a more specific and targeted approach focused on great power actors.
Threats Posed by WMDs to the United States
Mass destruction weapons (WMDs) pose a significant threat to the United States and the world. WMDs can potentially cause catastrophic harm and destruction to human life, animals, and the environment (Davenport, 2019). The threat of WMDs is not limited to any particular country or region, and the proliferation of these weapons is a global concern.
The greatest threat from WMDs stems from countries or non-state actors that seek to acquire, develop, or use these weapons. Several countries of concern, including North Korea, Iran, and Syria, are known to possess or have sought to acquire nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Additionally, there are non-state actors, such as terrorist groups, that seek to acquire and use WMDs to advance their political agendas (Reynolds, 2020). In recent years, the threat from WMDs has expanded to include emerging technologies, such as cyber-attacks and space-based systems, which could be used to disrupt critical infrastructure or interfere with military operations. Great powers such as China and Russia have developed advanced capabilities in these areas, posing a significant threat to the United States and its allies.
In summary, the threat from WMDs to the United States is significant, and the greatest threat stems from countries or non-state actors that seek to acquire or use these weapons. The threat has evolved to include emerging technologies, requiring a new WMD defense and deterrence approach.
References
Carus, W. S. (2012). Defining weapons of mass destruction. NATIONAL DEFENSE UNIV FORT MCNAIR DC CENTER FOR THE STUDY OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Okoro, O. I., & Oluka, N. L. (2019). Weapons of mass destruction and modern terrorism: Implications for global security. Asian Social Science, 15(3), 1-13.
Mauroni, A. J. (2010). A counter-WMD strategy for the future. The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, 40(2), 8.
Mauroni, A. J. (2022). Envisioning a New Strategy to Counter Great Power Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction. US Air Force Center for Strategic Deterrence Studies, Air University.
Davenport, K. (2019). US Sets Strategy Against WMD Terrorism. Arms Control Today, 49(1), 39-39.
Reynolds, C. (2020). Global Health Security and Weapons of Mass Destruction Chapter. Global Health Security: Recognizing Vulnerabilities, Creating Opportunities, 187-207.
Pilat, J., & White, P. (2019). Counter-proliferation and Non-proliferation: Problems and Opportunities. In Verification 1995 (pp. 151-160). Routledge.
Banzai, H. (2021). Maritime Counter-Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Freedom of Navigation: A Japanese Lawyer’s Perspective. In Implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: State Practice of China and Japan (pp. 95-111). Springer Singapore.
Pala, T. (2021). The Effectiveness of Economic Sanctions: A Literature Review. NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14(1), 239-259.
Fergusson, I. F., Rennack, D. E., & Elsea, J. K. (2019). The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use.
write