Why the US fears Russias potential use of chemical or

Why the US fears Russia’s potential use of chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine

Why some American leftists are critical of US assistance to

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine enters its third week, the US is closely monitoring any possible decision by Moscow regarding the use of chemical or biological weapons in Ukraine.

Washington has accused Russia of making false claims that the US is working with Ukraine to develop a chemical and biological weapons program. “Russia has a track record of blaming the West for the very crimes that Russia itself is committing,” State Department spokesman Ned Price said in a March 9 statement. unprovoked and unjustified attacks on Ukraine.”

President Biden warned last Friday that if Russia used such weapons, it would have to pay a “harsh price.”

To understand how chemical and biological weapons work, why they are controversial, and the kind of destruction they cause, Yahoo News spoke with Daniel Gerstein, a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation, an American global policy think tank. He previously served as Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. (The interview has been shortened and edited for clarity.)

Yahoo News: What are chemical weapons, how do they work, and what are some examples?

Daniel Gerstein: Chemical weapons, which we usually think of as chemically produced material. But in order for it to be classified as a chemical weapon, we would also pair it with some kind of dispersal device. When we talk about chemical weapons, we usually abbreviate them, and we have a number of families of chemical weapons that have historically been of concern to us and are included, if you like, in the list of the Chemical Weapons Convention. We have substances like asphyxiants, including something like chlorine. Blister agents will be mustard gas. Blood agents: hydrogen cyanide. Nerve agents: such as the VX nerve agent or the sarin nerve agent. The one we’ve been hearing a lot about lately is also a nerve agent called Novichok. It was he who was used in the assassination attempt on Alexei Navalny. [a Russian opposition leader]and Sergei Skripal [a former Russian double agent, and his daughter, Yulia] in the UK. And lastly, I would have to add a new column, and that’s opioids, fentanyls, which we hear a lot about. [In the October 2002 Moscow theater siege by Chechen gunmen, it is believed that a gas based on fentanyl was used by Russian special forces that killed not only the attackers but hostages as well.]

The story goes on

Why are chemical weapons controversial and are they banned?

Throughout history, going back to the antiquity of people using toxins as poisons to carry out murders and such, but more recently, of course, during the First World War, we saw terrible results, huge casualties, more than a million people were killed, using chemical weapons, predominantly asphyxiant types, which may include chlorine and phosgene. But the reason we came up with chemical bans is because they are horrendously used on the battlefield. And even as weapons of murder, as we have seen, or as weapons of terror. In 1993, we had negotiations that resulted in the Chemical Weapons Convention. This convention entered into force in 1997, and it is a kind of arms control agreement that, according to the list, limits the types of chemicals, precursor chemicals and other materials that states can possess.

It’s actually a very tricky thing, because some of the chemicals on the lists have dual uses. For example, some of the same chemicals that could be used in the development of pesticides would also be very dangerous if they were used in chemical weapons against humans, and thus the chemicals could continue to be used for legitimate purposes. while illegal use would be prevented.

Another example we have seen [in] Syria, interestingly, uses not only nerve agents, but also toxic industrial chemicals such as chlorine. Chlorine as a chemical weapon can be very effective. When inhaled, it enters the lungs, mixes with moisture in the lungs, with water in the lungs, and actually creates hydrochloric acid, which eventually kills the victim. We certainly want to think about banning the use of both chemical weapons themselves and toxic industrial chemicals that could be used as weapons of mass destruction.

What is a biological weapon?

It is a weapon that has been developed using biological material and is combined with some dispersal to become a biological weapon. There are actually three categories that we want to think about. The first are bacterial agents, the second are viral agents, and then the toxins, which are derived from bacteria and viruses.

When we talk about bacterial [agents]many of us in the United States are familiar with the use of anthrax. Anthrax is a bacterial agent. In 2001, he was sent to the postal system through a series of letters, and he actually killed five people and made 22 others sick. Others that we talk about throughout history are things like the bubonic plague, Yersinia pestis. We also like to think of tularemia or rabbit fever.

When we talk about viral, a number comes to mind. We could talk about smallpox, which has been a scourge in the history of mankind, in fact – it goes back to the earliest days of mankind, we see evidence of smallpox infection. Ebola is another. Ebola is dangerous as a natural disease, but it’s also interesting because there have been attempts to weaponize Ebola, link it to a delivery system, and use it as a weapon of mass destruction. There are other viral hemorrhagic fevers that can be used as weapons of mass destruction.

When we talk about toxins, one that you’re probably familiar with, but more in name than scientifically, is Botox, or clostridium botulinum, which produces the botulinum neurotoxin. Botulinum neurotoxin is a very dangerous compound. If someone is infected with it, it can kill by rendering them breathless, meaning they will either have to administer CPR, be ventilated, or be on a ventilator until it leaves their system. This is a very dangerous toxin. There are other toxins, such as staphylococcal enterotoxin B, which we thought about using when we had a former US offensive program. Either way, combining the toxin and delivery vehicles, bacteria or viruses, will create your bioweapon.

Are bioweapons banned?

They are certainly prohibited by the Biological Weapons Convention, the BWC as we call it. [which] was concluded in 1972 and entered into force in 1975. It is unique in terms of an arms control treaty. This is the first treaty to completely ban an entire class of weapons. The only way you can have these pathogens is if they are for the three P’s: prophylactic, prophylactic, or peaceful. Thanks to today’s biotechnology, we see many applications for creating vaccines using, say, viruses. Obviously, they have been modified, but with the use of viruses, to provide an immunological response. There are reasons why you will experiment with it. For defensive purposes, you would like to have small numbers to be able to develop diagnostics and medical countermeasures and vaccines, but in terms of their use as a weapon, this is absolutely prohibited. There are no circumstances under which this would be acceptable.

What is behind the potential Russian “false flag” tactics?

The Russians have made a statement that, in our opinion, leads to a “false flag” operation. [an intentional misrepresentation to justify an action]that Ukraine might consider using either chemical or biological weapons as a means of attack. [I] worked on the program [during the Obama administration] which managed that we worked with the Ukrainians on what was called the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction Program. It was a bipartisan Sens program. [Richard] Lugar, [R-Ind.]as well as [Sam] Nunn [D-Ga.]. The aim was that after the collapse of the Soviet Union and [Berlin] The wall has collapsed, all weapons and weapons of mass destruction that were created by the Soviet Union (and after its collapse in the former states of the Soviet Union) will be destroyed and … returned to peaceful purposes. If it is not destroyed, scientists will find another way to work – perhaps in the same field – but instead of thinking about building weapons, they will think about things like developing vaccines and medical countermeasures.

Our program was designed to go to these countries and find out where they were doing this work. In the case of biological material, we usually took what was available as strain repositories for different strains of biological material and put them in a single place according to Western standards. In some cases, we have built laboratory facilities for them. In other cases, we simply gave them equipment, newer equipment, that would allow them to safely deal with any pathogens.

And you might say, “Well, why do they need it to keep pathogens?” In many countries of the world there are some endemic diseases. It is very important to be able to maintain collections of strains of these diseases for research and to do all this in a safe and secure environment.

Why is the US on high alert after Russia’s false claims about chemical and biological weapons labs in Ukraine?

Obviously, we are worried from the point of view of a humanitarian catastrophe. We have seen how effective [chemical and biological weapons] maybe: Literally thousands of people can be killed in one attack. And with regard to chemical weapons in particular, one might think about deploying chemical weapons, and there are people who are in underground bunkers in the subway. They are in basements and chlorine can settle in these rooms and kill a very large number of people. In regards to biological weapons, one of our big concerns should be this: if they attacked one of the facilities that had some of these pathogens that were properly classified and stored, and then they were supposed to be hit by ammunition, you could get these biological pathogens freshly released into the open air. This can be very disastrous.

There are important policy implications. So much for Russia, which is a member of both the Biological Weapons Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. If they carry out a false flag operation, they will cross some important non-proliferation red lines – and this should not be taken lightly. We do not want a return to the use of chemical weapons or any use of biological weapons. It’s just disgusting for humanity. And it shouldn’t be part of the fighting repertoire.