Weapons of Mass Destruction | Introduction
The term weapons of mass destruction has two connotations. In its broader, literal sense, it is used to refer to weapons whose destructive power far surpasses that of guns or conventional explosives. However, the term is more often used in a narrower sense, to refer specifically to nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons. Since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, which raised awareness of America’s vulnerability, the United States has greatly intensified its efforts to stop the spread of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. When the president and other officials refer to “weapons of mass destruction,” they usually mean NBC weaponry.
In fact, while September 11 awakened America to the threat of terrorism perpetrated by groups such as al Qaeda, U.S. foreign policy since September 11 has been dominated by concerns about the development of NBC weapons by countries such as North Korea and Iran. President Bush linked the two concerns in his January 29, 2002, State of the Union address: “[We must] prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening America or our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.” He warned:
In the months that followed, President Bush elaborated on the U.S. strategy to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, released by the White House in December 2003, formally summarizes three pillars of U.S. policy: 1) WMD consequence management; 2) nonproliferation; and, 3) counterproliferation.North Korea is a regime arming with missiles and weapons of mass destruction, while starving its citizens. Iran aggressively pursues these weapons and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people’s hope for freedom. Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. . . . States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. . . . The United States will not permit the world’s most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world’s most destructive weapons.
According to the National Strategy, consequence management refers to homeland security efforts to “reduce to the extent possible the potentially horrific consequences of WMD attacks at home and abroad.” Such efforts include WMD-response training programs for firefighters, medical workers, and other first responders, and stockpiling of vaccines for smallpox and other diseases that might be used as bioweapons. However, because a WMD attack would be so devastating, U.S. strategy places a higher priority on preventing a WMD attack than on reacting to one.
Nonproliferation refers primarily to diplomatic efforts to encourage states with WMD programs to end them, and to dissuade states without WMD programs from starting them. The principal nonproliferation agreement is the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Originally signed in 1968 by the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and fifty-nine other countries, the NPT currently includes every member of the United Nations except India, Israel, and Pakistan. The NPT obligates states with nuclear weapons not to transfer their weapons, or the technology to build them, to nonnuclear states, and it obligates nonnuclear states not to acquire or produce nuclear weapons. A similar treaty for chemical weapons, the Chemical Weapons Convention, was ratified by the United States in 1997, while a proposed Biological Weapons Convention is being developed by international committees.
Counterproliferation is the most complicated and most controversial part of The National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction. One of the main aspects of counterproliferation is deterrence. Essentially, deterrence is based on the idea that the power of the U.S. military—including both conventional forces and nuclear weapons—will discourage other countries from using WMD. As the National Strategy states, “The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force—including through resort to all of our options—to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies.”
Another controversial part of counterproliferation is the United States’ declaration that it will preemptively attack nations that threaten to use or develop WMD. The debate over preemption first entered the national mainstream when, in a June 2002 speech, President Bush spoke of the need to strike first against terrorist threats: “If we wait for threats to materialize, we will have waited too long. . . . We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge.” The National Strategy describes preemption as a supplement to deterrence:
Preemption is more controversial than deterrence because it means that the United States may use military force against another nation, even if that nation has not used WMD against the United States or its allies.Because deterrence may not succeed, and because of the potentially devastating consequences of WMD use against our forces and civilian population, U.S. military forces and appropriate civilian agencies must have the capability to defend against WMD-armed adversaries, including in appropriate cases through preemptive measures. This requires capabilities to detect and destroy an adversary’s WMD assets before these weapons are used.
This was the case with the spring 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq. In September 2002, President Bush addressed the United Nations, arguing that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was not complying with UN resolutions to allow weapons inspectors to determine whether Iraq was building WMD. Bush warned that a military invasion of Iraq might be necessary. The United States maintained throughout 2002 that Iraq was secretly building chemical and biological weapons, as well as slowly expanding its nuclear program. Finally, after several failed attempts to gain UN approval for an invasion of Iraq, the United States and the United Kingdom invaded the nation in March 2003 to bring down the regime of Saddam Hussein. The invasion was successful, but the United States found no actual weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and unearthed only limited evidence that Iraq was pursuing WMD programs, leading many critics to question whether the invasion was justified.
The controversy over the invasion of Iraq is part of a broader debate about how to deal with other nations believed to be developing WMD. Critics of deterrence maintain that the United States should not threaten war in order to maintain peace, and that by maintaining a large nuclear arsenal, the United States undermines international nonproliferation efforts. Critics of preemption charge that the policy may actually lead other nations to develop WMD in order to deter the United States from invading. The authors in Opposing Viewpoints: Weapons of Mass Destruction examine these policies and other issues in the following chapters: How Likely Is an Attack Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction? How Should the United States Deal with Countries That Threaten to Develop Weapons of Mass Destruction? What Policies Should the United States Adopt Toward Nuclear Weapons? How Can the United States Defend Itself Against Weapons of Mass Destruction? Although there is plenty of disagreement about how the United States should deal with weapons of mass destruction, all sides in the debate agree on the need for strategies to prevent their use.
