The Chemical Weapons Convention: Strategic Implications for the United States.

1996 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick J. Vogel
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Chemical Weapons Convention

scholarly journals The Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act: United States Control Over Exports

1996 ◽  
Vol 90 (1) ◽  
pp. 138-149
Author(s):  
Rex J. Zedalis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Export Control ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Chemical Agent ◽  
Military Application ◽  
Chemical Weapons Convention ◽  
The Military ◽  
Total Sales

During 1994, the total sales value of chemicals exported from the United States exceeded $51 billion, up 15 percent over the previous year and resulting in the chemical sector outpacing all other sectors that finished the year with favorable trade balances. Chemicals leaving the United States were shipped under the control provisions of both the Department of Commerce's Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and the Department of State's International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Though this is something of an oversimplification, the EAR basically concerns itself with products that have civilian application, and the ITAR with products of use to the military. Currently, the Commodity Control List of the EAR, overseen by Commerce's Office of Export Licensing within the Bureau of Export Administration, identifies fifty-four chemicals and ten toxins as intermediate agents and precursors to chemical weapons subject to export regulation. The Munitions List of the ITAR, administered by the Office of Defense Trade Controls of the State Department's Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs, identifies twenty-two chemicals as subject to regulation and cautions that this listing is merely illustrative, as any “chemical agent,” defined as “a substance having military application,” is subject to export control.

Iraq's Chemical Weapons Legacy: What Others Might Learn from Saddam

2005 ◽  
Vol 59 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-208
Author(s):  
Richard L. Russell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Nuclear Weapon ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Nation States

Iraq's experience with chemical weapons provides ample lessons for nation-states looking to redress their conventional military shortcomings. Nation-states are likely to learn from Saddam that chemical weapons are useful for waging war against nation-states ill-prepared to fight on a chemical battlefield as well as against internal insurgents and rebellious civilians. Most significantly, nation-states studying Iraq's experience are likely to conclude that chemical weapons are not a “poor man's nuclear weapon” and that only nuclear weapons can deter potential adversaries including the United States.

The Responsibility to Protect and Obama’s Red Line on Syria

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 76-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yasmine Nahlawi
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
Legal Basis ◽  
Chemical Attack ◽  
Mass Atrocity ◽  
Atrocity Crimes ◽  
Syrian Conflict ◽  
Red Line

The 21 August 2013 chemical attack on Ghouta led to the mobilisation of the international community after long international paralysis towards the ongoing conflict in Syria. It is unclear, however, why or under what legal basis states chose to react to Syria’s use of chemical weapons in exclusion to other mass atrocity crimes committed within the country. This article evaluates the legal underpinnings of President Obama’s ‘red line’ on the use of chemical weapons in Syria in the context of R2P. It notes that while all states condemned the Ghouta attack and called for accountability in this regard, only a minority of states shared the United States’ position that chemical weapons constituted a red line in their own right. Overall, it is maintained that the ‘red line’ phenomenon was case-specific to the Syrian conflict, reflecting geopolitical interests of world powers rather than signifying a new precedent for R2P’s application.

Origins, 1917

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas I. Faith
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
World War I ◽  
The United States ◽  
Chemical Warfare ◽  
Chemical Weapons ◽  
World War ◽  
Manufacturing Operations ◽  
Emergency Measures

This chapter examines the United States' chemical warfare program as it developed before the nation began sending soldiers to fight in France during World War I. In 1917, the United States was rapidly and haphazardly putting together a chemical warfare organization capable of a variety of responsibilities that included performing research, manufacturing war gases and gas masks, training the soldiers of the American Expeditionary Force (AEF) to defend themselves against enemy gas, and deploying gas on the battlefield. While the members of the chemical warfare program performed well under the circumstances, more advanced preparation would have improved readiness and mitigated the need for emergency measures. This chapter discusses the use of poison gas and gas masks and the United States' chemical weapons manufacturing operations during World War I.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document