The Death Star: Meet the New Plan, Same as the Old Plan

The Cold War may be characterized as a time when fear and paranoia guided the international system to a constant security dilemma, resulting in the largest arms race and military buildup in history. Despite a persistent perception of fear, with occasional spikes resulting from incidents such as the Cuban missile crisis, or others that remain classified, few instances could compare with the genuine fear the Soviet leadership felt on March 23rd 1983. On that day, President Reagan openly called for the United States to begin development of a missile defense system, with the aim of ultimately limiting the threat of strategic nuclear ballistic missiles. In effect, President Reagan kicked the arms race up a notch. As a recent declassified United States intelligence document illustrates, the Reagan administration was aware of the possible Soviet responses to the strategic defense initiative (or SDI, also known to its detractors as "Star Wars"), but believed the benefits would outweigh the costs.

The common assumption surrounding American missile defense policy is that it will increase security for the United States and its allies. Twenty-four years after Reagan’s announcement, the Bush administration has made a similar gamble regarding possible international reactions and has begun deploying the first elements of a new missile shield. However, there are no guarantees that an anti-ballistic missile system will aid security this time. While a missile shield appears to merely step up the arms race, Russia has a host of options with which it may respond to the latest deployment of missile interceptors rather than engaging in developing its own missile defense system. Russia could decide to secure their superpower status by redeploying an increased number of strategic nuclear weapons, if chosen as the best course of action, this would destabilize the current agreements between the United States and Russia on the deployment of strategic nuclear weapons.

Last week Russian President Vladimir Putin (seen in image to the left) brought forth strong rhetoric, warning the United States that "Analogous actions by the Soviet Union when it deployed rockets on Cuba provoked the Cuban missile crisis," said Putin. "For us, technologically, the situation is very similar. On our borders such threats to our country are being created." Russia views the United States’ missile shield installments in the former Soviet Union satellite states of Poland and the Czech Republic, now NATO members, as a return to the policy of containment aimed at decreasing Russia’s strategic deterrence. In my opinion, moving ahead with a missile defense system, which as yet has not demonstrated a high accuracy of success, is unwise because it creates a diplomatic problem with Russia long before such action would be necessary. Keeping a potential adversary such as Russia on its toes is one thing, but cornering the bear is quite another.

Russia has alluded to the possibility of reassembling its intermediate range nuclear forces, a class of weapon that was previously removed as a result of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. If Russian INFs were to materialize, then it is likely the United States would also bring INFs back onto the table. This could result in a reemergence of the Cold War era arms race. While both the United States and the Russian Federation have made offers to include or aid the other in the creation of such a missile shield, the United States has said that Russia has offered nothing new and Russia clearly does not want to be taken onboard for another costly military acquisition project. It would be better for the United States to continue perfecting the missile defense technology while attempting to gain greater support from Russia to lessen to diplomatic repercussions.

Although Putin has drawn parallels to the present situation and the Cuban missile crisis, he has made it clear that tensions have not reached a critical point because of the improved nature of Russian-American relations. Putin has pointed out the singular importance of such relations saying, "the relations of trust, help to smooth such problems. I have a full right to describe him [ President Bush] as my personal friend as he calls me his friend." However, once Putin and Bush leave office, there will no longer be a personal relation of trust to depend upon (seen in image to the right). Though a missile shield could be of strategic value, it would not be in the interest of the United States to cause the destruction of progress in removing INFs. The best result of creating a missile defense system would come from the world nuclear powers, such as Russia and the United States, working together to ensure the threat of strategic nuclear warfare is eliminated for all states. Without such cooperation, it is possible that for the foreseeable future, nuclear weapon states which cannot afford missile defense systems will instead deploy more strategic nuclear missiles to compensate for the amount of interceptors deployed by adversaries. This would be a large step backward toward the security issues realized during the Cold War with the massive deployment of strategic nuclear forces.

The Bigger Picture: Looking Beyond Dangers Suggested in the Media

Discussion of international politics has become all but impossible without the mention of weapons of mass destruction. Whether it is headline news or political rhetoric, the term WMD has become a familiar word and is common in world news media. Although most understand the meaning behind the term, it is surprisingly rare to hear news on certain aspects of weapons of mass destruction. Nuclear proliferation issues throughout the world are discussed in the media almost every day, amplified by the current controversies over Iran and North Korea, but what of the other categories of WMDs, such as chemical weapons? A prudent observer of international politics or security must ask why greater attention is not being given to chemical weapons. Is proliferation of chemical weapons less of a threat than nuclear weapons?

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Chemical Weapons Convention (the cousin to the NPT) which was created to aid in the universal elimination of chemical weapons. “The 6 States Parties which have declared chemical weapons must destroy over 8,670,000 items, including munitions and containers —containing in total, over 71,000 metric tonnes of extremely toxic chemical agents.” The time table set for the complete destruction of these stockpiles has come and gone and the CWC has extended the end date to 2012 because of difficulties encountered. To date the CWC reports that only 30% of these chemicals have been destroyed. To put the danger of chemical weapons into perspective, it must be realized that the majority of the chemicals stockpiled are nerve agents such as VX and Sarin, a large portion of which are stored in small munitions (as seen in the image to the left).

The scope of this threat can only be realized by understanding the ease with which one or more of these weapons could be acquired and smuggled throughout the world. Chemical weapons sealed in an appropriate container are relatively inconspicuous, unlike nuclear weapons which are detectable because of the radiation emitted and biological weapons which are highly dangerous and unstable to transport. Substances such as VX and Sarin may be placed in small containers or munitions and present fewer difficulties in their transportation and almost no complexities with regards to detonation.

These weapons are small, highly mobile, and extremely lethal. Although there has been progress towards the destruction of the declared chemical stockpiles of six of the CWC member states, there remains a need for great haste and additional caution regarding these weapons.
Chemical weapons remain a highly dangerous and an abundant threat to the world. For example, Russia (a member of the CWC which has declared its stockpile) possessed approximately 40,000 metric tons of chemical agents. Although the United States and other nations are aiding Russia in the construction of multiple facilities for the ultimate destruction of these weapons, it is unlikely that Russia will meet the 2012 deadline. The danger behind this is that Russian chemical weapons are stored above ground in structures that are not armored and which employ almost no means of adequate security. As seen in image to the right, these storage facilities are sheet metal buildings secured with bars and padlocks and very few guards.

The dismal conditions of Russian storage sites are unfortunately not an exception to the rule. There are numerous states which store chemical weapons in a similar fashion to Russia, such as Albania; one of its current storage facilities can be seen in the image to the right. Because there are numerous states which produced or possess chemical weapons, a majority of these being undeclared, the issue of cataloging and securing chemical weapons from terrorists or rogue states is an even greater task than that of nuclear materials and weapons. Unlike biological weapons which have a short shelf life, or nuclear weapons that require considerable maintenance, chemical weapons require only the creation process. Once created chemical agents have proven that they can remain lethal for generations.

The danger lies in the lack of public awareness. Everyone has seen videos of atomic bombs being detonated, demonstrating their awesome destructive power, which truly is a terrifying sight. However, very few have been witness to the incredible power of modern chemical weapons. In the case of VX, a dose of 30 micrograms is lethal to a human. This means that 100grams of VX has the ability to kill over 3,000,000 people. To put this into perspective, 100grams is the weight of my cell phone.

It is absolutely necessary for the world to understand the danger chemical weapons pose to humanity and be aware that these weapons are a current threat on a scale similar to nuclear weapons, both in terms of proliferation and quantity. This brief overview should serve to inform governments, individuals, and the media that a discussion of the dangers regarding WMDs must not be limited to nuclear weapons, but must include all categories of WMDs, especially the grave threat of chemical weapons.