CHEMICAL WEAPONS

CHEMICAL WEAPONS


It is time for Norwegians to get their heads out of the sand
regarding chemical weapons. Declaring Norway a chemical weapons
free area is an illusion. Those Soviet systems on the Kola
Peninsula capable of delivering chemical weapons are not there
for the amusement of Russian soldiers.
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev did not get around to
discussing chemical weapons in Iceland. An American official who
was there commented that there are only so many hours in a day.
Another reason was that there was little public pressure.
This is surprising, since a number of countries have used
chemical weapons since World War II, most recently in the Iraq-
Iran conflict. Furthermore, they have always been used against
countries which had poor chemical defenses and little or nothing
with which to retaliate.
A quarter of a century ago, there were about five countries
with chemical weapons. There are now about fifteen, and the
number is growing.
It is ironic that most discussion recently has been about
the US decision to produce binary chemical weapons. These
consist of two chemicals, which remain separate until firing. If
nothing else, they are safer to transport and store than the
present unitary weapons.
Most people have forgotten that the US unilaterally ceased
production of chemical weapons in 1969. There has also been
little interest until recently in the stocks of American chemical
weapons which have been in Europe for decades. Nor did anyone
pay much attention to the Soviet buildup of its chemical forces
which followed the US decision to stop production.
It was only when the Storting Foreign Affairs Committee went
to Washington early this year that the binary weapon issue arose
here. At that time, the committee's members learned that some
Congressmen who were opposing the binary weapons insisted on
consulting NATO.
During the discussion of the binaries in NATO, some coun-
tries, including Norway, registered their objections. Most of
the members, however, regretfully endorsed them.
Subsequently, the US Congress has authorized the Pentagon to
go ahead with the production of some binary weapons. The US Army
will stockpile these in the US. It will also destroy all of its
present chemical stocks.
General Bernard Rogers, the senior NATO commander in Europe,
has expressed his satisfaction with these arrangements. He is,
however, not happy with the unwillingness of NATO politicians to
provide him guidance regarding the possible use of chemical
weapons.
NATO strategy provides for the possible use of chemical
weapons, in response to their use by the Soviet Union. Unlike
with nuclear weapons, however, Rogers has no political guidelines
regarding how chemical weapons might be used.
If, for example, the Soviets were to use chemical weapons
against Norway, how should NATO military commanders respond?
Should they only take protective measures, which will greatly
limit their ability to fight? If the decision were to retaliate
with chemical weapons, what kind should they use and against what
targets?
Some people suggest that NATO could retaliate with nuclear
weapons. Are they serious? Can anyone imagine an American
President authorizing the use of nuclear weapons because the
Soviets used some chemical weapons against, for example, Norwe-
gian troops in Finnmark?
Everyone agrees that the best solution would be to destroy
all chemical weapons. There have been negotiations on this
subject in Geneva for many years now.
The main obstacle is verification. There has been much
controversy regarding American charges that the Soviets are
producing biological weapons and have used chemical weapons, for
example in Afghanistan. If these charges were wrong, the Soviets
could have dispelled them easily by allowing on site inspections.
Until they understand this, there will be no agreement on
chemical weapons. When talking to Russians, Norwegians should
point this out.
In writing this article, I am not suggesting that Norwegians
should not continue to be concerned about nuclear weapons. After
Iceland, one can at least hope that there will be some reduction
in their numbers. As things are going, one cannot be equally
optimistic about chemical weapons.
If there is to be any progress regarding chemical weapons in
Geneva, governments must show more concern. This in turn will
require that the public learn to discuss this emotional subject
at least as calmly as they do nuclear weapons. Ignoring chemical
weapons because they are terrible will not make them go away.