Fathoming chemical weapons in the Gotland Deep

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 631-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Astrida Neimanis ◽  
Aleksija Neimanis ◽  
Cecilia Åsberg

At the end of World War II, tens of thousands of tons of chemical warfare agents – mostly mustard gas – were dumped in the Gotland Deep – a deep basin in the middle of the otherwise shallow Baltic Sea. Decades later, these weapons are being reactivated – both literally (perhaps on the faces of dead seals, and in fishermen’s nets) and also in our imaginations. In this story that recounts the beginning of our research into this situation, militarization meets with environmental concern: the past floats into the present, where humans and non-humans are equally implicated, where the sea itself conditions the kinds of questions we can ask, and answers we might get, and where terms like ‘threat’ and ‘risk’ remain undecided. After spending time on Gotland Island – the closest terrestrial site to these weapons dumps – we ask what kinds of research methods might be adequate to these tangled, underwater tales that we find so difficult to fathom.

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan L. Smith

During World War II, scientists funded by the United States government conducted mustard gas experiments on 60,000 American soldiers as part of military preparation for potential chemical warfare. One aspect of the chemical warfare research program on mustard gas involved race-based human experimentation. In at least nine research projects conducted during the 1940s, scientists investigated how so-called racial differences affected the impact of mustard gas exposure on the bodies of soldiers. Building on cultural beliefs about “race,” these studies occurred on military bases and universities, which became places for racialized human experimentation.


Sensors ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 4291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Kangas ◽  
Adreanna Ernest ◽  
Rachel Lukowicz ◽  
Andres Mora ◽  
Anais Quossi ◽  
...  

Chemical warfare agents pose significant threats in the 21st century, especially for armed forces. A colorimetric detection array was developed to identify warfare mimics, including mustard gas and nerve agents. In total, 188 sensors were screened to determine the best sensor performance, in order to identify warfare mimics 2-chloro ethyl ethylsulfide, 2-2′-thiodiethanol, trifluoroacetic acid, methylphosphonic acid, dimethylphosphite, diethylcyanophosphonate, and diethyl (methylthiomethyl)phosphonate. The highest loadings in the principle component analysis (PCA) plots were used to identify the sensors that were most effective in analyzing the RGB data to classify the warfare mimics. The dataset was reduced to only twelve sensors, and PCA results gave comparable results as the large data did, demonstrating that only twelve sensors are needed to classify the warfare mimics.


2020 ◽  
Vol 68 (4) ◽  
pp. 139-163
Author(s):  
Marcin Kloske ◽  
Zygfryd Witkiewicz

The article contains the knowledge about the V-group of organophosphorus chemical warfare agents, named nerve agents, used since their discovery until the year 1970. Group V is the second consecutive collection of CW agents and it contains a number of chemical substances, which were considered up to the year 2018, to be the most toxic chemical compounds included in the arsenal of chemical weapons. Keywords: organophosphorus toxic agents, chemical weapon, II World War, post-war period, Cold War


2019 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-118
Author(s):  
Marcin Kloske ◽  
Zygfryd Witkiewicz

The publication contains a synthesis of knowledge about chemical weapon and its use during the First World War and in the period after that war, until the nerve agent discovery. It describes chemical warfare agents (CWAs) that were discovered, produced, and used on the battlefield at that time. They are referred to as the first and second CWAs generation. Keywords: chemical weapon, chemical warfare agents, World War I, interwar period


2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 39-63

The introduction of poison gases by the Germans at Ypres in April 1915 marked a new era in modern warfare. The cylinder attack of the German Army against the French and the British positions at Ypres on April 22, 1915, became the first large-scale appearance of the new kind of weapons, chemical weapons, on the battlefields of World War 1. The widespread use of chemical munitions of different types, numerous toxic agents and their delivery systems (field and heavy artillery, mortars and Livens projectors) by all the belligerents influenced military tactics and operational art at World War 1. In 1915-1916, during the period of trench warfare, the use of chemical weapons for breaking through the enemy`s first defence lines changed the structure of combat orders and led to their dispersal and the deployment in depth of the defensive zone. In 1917 chemical weapons made it possible to overcome the contradiction between the lengthy preliminary artillery bombardment and the surprise of the offensive. The unprecedented artillery chemical bombardments fired by the German Army, artillery chemical battle, resulted in the significant success of the Germans in spring offensives in 1918, when large parts of the front were given up by the retiring Allied forces. The dynamics of the growth of the chemical warfare agents` (CWA) production, the development of means and methods for delivering the agents efficiently to the target by the Allied countries allowed the authors to suggest that in case Germany had not signed the armistice of 11 November 1918 with the Allies, the large-scale battlefield use of chemical weapons could multiply both in quality and in quantity. The development of the bombardment aviation and the inability of Germany to carry out a retaliatory chemical attack, that became obvious at the end of 1918, offered a golden opportunity for the Allies to use chemical agents in 1919 without any legal or humanitarian limitation on the methods of warfare. This article is concerned also with tactical and operational objectives and targets the belligerents tried to achieve by using chemical weapons during separate battles, the evolution of chemical weapons and chemical warfare agents and their joint impact on military operations at the battlefields of World War 1.


2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Ede

In 2008, Susan L. Smith published “Mustard Gas and American Race-Based Human Experimentation in World War II.” Research, undertaken by the US Army, attempted to quantify the effect of mustard gas (actually a volitile liquid) and othe chemical agents on people from different racial groups. This was based on the idea that different races would respond differently to the toxins, and in particular that this would be evident through dermal reaction. In other words, different skin color might mean different skin constitution. Some of the testing seemed reasonable, since new chemicals and equipment had been developed since 1919, and the racial issue added another dimension to the research. On closer examination, the testing was primarily based on old chemical agents such as mustard gas, Lewisite and phosgene, and thus the extent of the testing seemed scientifically and medically unnecessary. The chemical agents had been developed, tested, used in battle, the wounded treated and the dead subjected to detailed pathological study. The major combatants in World War I had all committed extensive scientific resources to the study of these agents looking at both offensive and defensive aspects of their use, including toxicity testing. The U.S. Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) had been formed in 1918 to specifically deal with issues such as toxicity tests, so why was the U.S. Army revisiting the subject of chemical weapons testing during World War II?


1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (322) ◽  
pp. 81-104
Author(s):  
Rainer Baudendistel

During World War I, chemical warfare agents were widely used for the first time on all major fronts with an unprecedented number of casualties, and immediately after the war attempts were made to outlaw this latest weapon. Responsibility for the drafting of specific laws fell to the League of Nations, reflecting the belief that this was a matter of concern for the whole world, not just for the victors in the war. On 17 June 1925, the Geneva Protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases and of bacteriological methods of warfare was signed by 26 States.3 It contained a categorical prohibition to resort to chemical and biological warfare. The signature of the Protocol raised high hopes of an effective ban on chemical warfare, but adherence progressed slowly. A number of States, visibly not trusting the Protocol to be implemented in the forthright manner suggested by the text, made major reservations.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document