Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare (2008) - The Black Vault
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare (2008) - The Black Vault

Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare (2008) - The Black Vault Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfare (2008) - The Black Vault

documents.blackvault.com
from documents.blackvault.com More from this publisher
13.07.2015 Views

History of Chemical WarfareNorth Africa had resulted in key victories against theSpanish army, forcing their retreat to the Moroccancoastline by 1924. The following year, France forgeda counterattack with Spain to subdue the rebellion.Fighting lasted a year, with the alleged use of mustardgas by Spain and France against the Berbers,who were eventually defeated. 54 Also in 1924, theItalians established the Centro Chemico Militaire, aunified chemical warfare service, and began producingchemical agents, which attracted US attention. 55–57Survival of the Chemical Warfare ServiceThe CWS, originally organized by the Army as atemporary war measure, was part of the NationalArmy only, not the Regular Army. Its temporary statuswas due to expire within 6 months after the endof the war (later extended to June 30, 1920). However,if the CWS disbanded, the US Army would almostcertainly forget the extensive experience of chemicaloffense, defense, and preparedness gained during thewar. During congressional hearings, Secretary of WarNewton D Baker testified, “We ought to defend ourarmy against a gas attack if somebody else uses it, butwe ought not to initiate gas.” 58(p3) Baker and Chief ofStaff General Peyton C March used this philosophyto recommend abolishing the CWS and outlawingchemical warfare by a treaty. 59 Even General Sibert,when asked about the need for a permanent CWSand the possibility of chemical warfare in the future,replied, “Based on its effectiveness and humaneness,[chemical warfare] certainly will be an importantelement in any future war unless the use of it shouldbe prohibited by international agreement. As tothe probability of such action, I cannot venture anopinion.” 60(p87)Several prominent civilian and military leaderslobbied for a permanent chemical warfare organization(Figure 2-33). Lieutenant Colonel Fries, one of thestrongest proponents of a permanent organization,Fig. 2-33. Advertisement for the US Chemical Warfare Service.Photograph: Courtesy of US Army Military History Institute, Carlisle, Pa.43

Medical Aspects of Chemical Warfarestressed the need for a central establishment, one that After 1919 almost all the work of the CWS movedcovered all aspects of chemical warfare. He drew on to Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland, with only the headquartersremaining in Washington, DC. Edgewoodthe lessons learned from the Great War, saying:became the center of training, stockpiling, and researchHad there been a chemical Warfare Service in 1915 and development. Initially, the CWS was authorizedwhen the first gas attack was made, we would have to train only its own troops in all aspects of chemicalbeen fully prepared with gases and masks, and the warfare while other Army elements were permitteddefensive training only. The CWS protested thisArmy would have been trained in its use. This wouldhave saved thousands of gas cases, the war mightlimitation and finally in May 1930, the judge advocateeasily have been shortened six months or even a year,and untold misery and wasted wealth might have general ruled that both offensive and defensive trainingwas allowed for all troops. 64been saved. 61(p4)Leftover stocks of chemicals from World War I wereFries also disagreed with the premise that treaties deemed sufficient for the Army’s stockpile. In 1922,could prevent warfare:to comply with the Limitation of Arms Conference,the War Department ordered that “the filling of allResearches into poisonous gases cannot be suppressed.Why? Because they can be carried on in out-discontinued, except for the limited number neededprojectiles and containers with poisonous gas will beof-the-way cellar rooms, where complete plans may in perfecting gas-defense appliances.” 65 The CWS wasbe worked out to change existing industrial chemical only allowed to continue limited research and developmentbased on predictions of future wars. 65,66plants into full capacity poisonous gas plants on afortnight’s notice, and who will be the wiser? 23(p3)At the close of the 1920s, the CWS formalized thestandardization of chemical agents. Seven chemicalAlthough Fries’s comments were persuasive and agents and smokes were selected as the most important.The seven, with their symbols, were as follows:eloquent, a young lieutenant more graphically expressedthe opinion of those who understood thenature of chemical warfare in a 1919 poem:• mustard agent (HS; “H” for Hun-Stoffe,“S” for the 25% solvent added to form crudeThere is nothing in war more important than gasmustard. “D” later replaced the “S,” signifyingThe man who neglects it himself is an assdistilled or purified mustard);The unit Commander whose training is slack62(cover iv)Might just as well stab all his men in the back.• methyldifluorarsine (MD);• diphenylaminechlorarsine (DM);Proponents for a chemical warfare service won the• chloroacetophenone (CN);debate. On July 1, 1920, the CWS became a permanent• titanium tetrachloride (FM);part of the Regular Army. Its mission included developing,procuring, and supplying all offensive and• white phosphorus (WP); and• hexachlorethane (HC).defensive chemical warfare material, together withsimilar functions in the fields of smoke and incendiaryPhosgene (CG) and lewisite (L) were considered lessweapons. In addition, the CWS was made responsibleimportant. Chloropicrin (PS) and chlorine (Cl) werefor training the Army in chemical warfare and for organizing,equipping, training, and employing specialrated the least important. 4chemical troops. 27,63New US PolicyLean Years for the Chemical Warfare ServiceFurther international attempts to ban not only theuse of chemical weapons but also all research, production,and training elicited a response that developedDespite having gained permanent status, the yearsafter 1920 were lean ones for the CWS and the Army asinto a new US policy on chemical warfare. Armya whole. The CWS was authorized 100 Regular ArmyChief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur statedofficers but never actually achieved that number. Thethe policy in a letter to Secretary of State Henry Llow point was 64 officers in 1923. Enlisted strengthStimson in 1932:dropped to a low of 261 in 1919 and averaged about 400In the matter of chemical warfare, the War Departmentopposes any restrictions whereby the Unitedthe rest of the decade. Civilian employees numberedless than a thousand. The low point in funds was in States would refrain from all peacetime preparationor manufacture of gases, means of 1923, when the budget was $600,000. 27 launching44

History <strong>of</strong> <strong>Chemical</strong> <strong>Warfare</strong>North Africa had resulted in key victories against theSpanish army, forcing their retreat to the Moroccancoastline by 1924. <strong>The</strong> following year, France forgeda counterattack with Spain to subdue the rebellion.Fighting lasted a year, with the alleged use <strong>of</strong> mustardgas by Spain and France against the Berbers,who were eventually defeated. 54 Also in 1924, theItalians established the Centro Chemico Militaire, aunified chemical warfare service, and began producingchemical agents, which attracted US attention. 55–57Survival <strong>of</strong> the <strong>Chemical</strong> <strong>Warfare</strong> Service<strong>The</strong> CWS, originally organized by the Army as atemporary war measure, was part <strong>of</strong> the NationalArmy only, not the Regular Army. Its temporary statuswas due to expire within 6 months after the end<strong>of</strong> the war (later extended to June 30, 1920). However,if the CWS disbanded, the US Army would almostcertainly forget the extensive experience <strong>of</strong> chemical<strong>of</strong>fense, defense, and preparedness gained during thewar. During congressional hearings, Secretary <strong>of</strong> WarNewton D Baker testified, “We ought to defend ourarmy against a gas attack if somebody else uses it, butwe ought not to initiate gas.” 58(p3) Baker and Chief <strong>of</strong>Staff General Peyton C March used this philosophyto recommend abolishing the CWS and outlawingchemical warfare by a treaty. 59 Even General Sibert,when asked about the need for a permanent CWSand the possibility <strong>of</strong> chemical warfare in the future,replied, “Based on its effectiveness and humaneness,[chemical warfare] certainly will be an importantelement in any future war unless the use <strong>of</strong> it shouldbe prohibited by international agreement. As tothe probability <strong>of</strong> such action, I cannot venture anopinion.” 60(p87)Several prominent civilian and military leaderslobbied for a permanent chemical warfare organization(Figure 2-33). Lieutenant Colonel Fries, one <strong>of</strong> thestrongest proponents <strong>of</strong> a permanent organization,Fig. 2-33. Advertisement for the US <strong>Chemical</strong> <strong>Warfare</strong> Service.Photograph: Courtesy <strong>of</strong> US Army Military History Institute, Carlisle, Pa.43

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!