War of Nerves by Jonathan Tucker

Author:Jonathan Tucker
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Fiction
ISBN: 9780307430106
Publisher: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group
Published: 2007-12-18T05:00:00+00:00

CHAPTER THIRTEEN

BINARY DEBATE

IN DECEMBER 1980, a task force of the Defense Science Board, an elite group of scientific advisers to the Pentagon, issued a classified report on U.S. chemical warfare policy that had been prepared over the summer. Chaired by John M. Deutch, a professor of chemistry at MIT, this panel found that the existing U.S. chemical weapons stockpile was outdated and partly unusable, limiting its deterrent value. Upgrading chemical defenses alone would not be a sufficient remedy because gas masks and protective suits were awkward and uncomfortable for troops to wear, particularly in hot weather, causing a 30 to 50 percent decline in unit performance. If the Soviet Union could impose this handicap on the United States without fear of retaliation, it would gain a significant military advantage. The Deutch committee concluded that because the renewed production of unitary nerve agents would be “politically unacceptable,” the best option was to destroy the aging unitary stockpile and replace it with a smaller number of advanced binary weapons.

On February 2, 1982, President Reagan formally requested more than $30 million to begin production of the M687 binary Sarin projectile, but the administration faced an uphill battle in persuading Congress to go along. A majority of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives was opposed to binary production, and the Republican-controlled Senate was split by the closest of margins. Nerve agents were the only weapon system that many liberals and conservatives found equally unpalatable. Not only did chemical arms lack a political constituency, but the public recognized that poison gas was indiscriminate and more likely to kill civilians than well-protected troops. Critics also had serious doubts about the military utility of binary chemical weapons for the defense of NATO and whether they would work as advertised.

The fact that support for binary weapons correlated poorly with party affiliation and ideology made for some strange political bedfellows. On March 12, 1982, for example, twelve Democratic and Republican senators from across the political spectrum wrote a letter to Senator John Tower (R.–Texas), the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, opposing production of binary weapons. Signatories included liberals such as Gary Hart, Edward Kennedy, and George Mitchell, and conservatives such as Thad Cochran and Nancy Kassebaum. The letter read in part, “The production of binary chemical weapons is not necessary for the national defense, nor is it necessary to deter Soviet first use. Our current stockpiles are adequate for that purpose. Our principal emphasis should be the acquisition of additional protective and defensive equipment for U.S. combat forces to reduce the effects of a chemical weapons attack.”

During consideration of the FY 1983 Defense Authorization Bill, the Senate endorsed binary production by a narrow 49–45 vote. In the House, however, a political odd couple—Ed Bethune, an archconservative Republican from Arkansas, and Clement Zablocki, a liberal Democrat from Wisconsin—teamed up to defeat the legislation. When members of both chambers met in conference committee to reconcile the two versions of the bill, they agreed to support the House position against binary weapons.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.