Countering the Threat of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs)
Purpose Statement

Chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) weapons of mass destruction (WMD) area a threat that can completely disrupt an entire nation’s way of life. The current situation in China is a perfect illustration of what can happen when a biological weapon is used to destabilize a nation’s economy. China is currently grinding to a halt as the Covin-19 virus spreads like wildfire through China. The example shows how devastating a WMD can be when used in an attack. The purpose of this study is to examine ways to prevent or reduce the risk of a CBRN WMD attack. By looking at the use of international treaties, the rise of terrorism, and counter-proliferation strategies, this paper will assess the measures available for achieving the aim.

Research Question

What can nations do to prevent or reduce the risk of CBRN WMD attacks?

Literature Review

International Strategies

While international treaties may seem like an effective approach to reducing the risk of a CBRN WMD attack, treaties are not a full-proof plan as they can be broken or not renewed. The current Security Council Resolution 1540 is a new approach to reducing the risk of WMD proliferation. This new approach of international legislation has been passed through Council resolutions with the goal being to implement new regulations that “legally bind all UN members immediately and automatically without exception and are equivalent to those in a treaty instantly ratified by all UN members” (Asada, 2008, p. 303). In other words, by using the infrastructure and rules of the UN, the Security Council Resolution 1540 is an attempt to curb WMD proliferation.

In spite of the benefits of this new approach, however, there are still problems that come from international legislation, including the difficulty of enforcing it and creating an environment in which the problems of countries that engage in WMD proliferation can effectively be treated (Asada, 2008). The problem of enforcement is exacerbated by the destabilization of nations and regions, such as the Middle East, where Libya has become a failed state and the threat of the spread of WMDs is made worse because of the instability there now. Yet, even before Gaddafi’s overthrow, the state was seen as a rogue state by Western powers (Hochman, 2006). In 2003, Gaddafi had signaled that he would be ending the development of the country’s stockpile of WMDs, which was why Western powers had considered Libya a threat to security. Gaddafi had always denied the nation was developing WMDs—but his turnabout in 2003 showed that he was now willing to seek rapprochement with the West. This led to private investment in Libya and an economic stimulus for the country. By playing by the rules of the West regarding non-proliferation, Libya became more intimately tied to the West—at least for a time. Revolution still followed, and the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya under the Obama Administration, after which Hillary Clinton callously quipped, “We came, we saw, he died” (CBS, 2011), showed to what extent Western powers were willing to go not only to alienate a nation that is allies in the Middle East still saw as a threat but also to what extent they were willing to go to remove people from power whose leaders had fallen out of favor. The Oded Yinon (1982) strategy for Greater Israel was in play at that point and the repercussions can still be seen to this day. The threat of WMD proliferation has spread as a result.

But is this method of acting a good or effective one? Today, groups are fighting for control of Libya, with warlords and the terrorist organizations competing for dominance. The threat of WMDs being smuggled out or used by one of these groups has increased with the overthrow of Gaddafi. Instead of making the world safer, the Western leaders who oversaw Gaddafi’s removal have made the region more unstable. As Hochman (2006) notes, rehabilitation was a good idea, as it showed an alignment of motives and goals among diverse countries. A system in which countries could benefit from mutually inclusive aims could help to reduce the threat of WMD development and dispersal.

This may be way there was such uproar when President Trump decided to abandon the nuclear treaty with Iran. European nations were shocked that the US should pull out of what to all intents and purposes appeared to be a working solution to Iran’s need for nuclear energy and the West’s need to know that Iran was not ramping up productions for the purposes of developing nuclear weapons (Yarhi-Milo, 2018). It was a measured and monitored treaty—but then the US pulled out of it and Iran immediately threatened to ramp up its production of uranium enrichment...…of friends with state actors, who have great influence over non-state actors. Diplomacy is a strategy that should not be ruled out—but the current administration has attempted to try different strategies instead and the result has been a loss of credibility (Yarhi-Milo, 2018). Now the risk of WMDs spreading is growing in the Middle East.

Summary

International strategies, the rise of terrorism and counter-proliferation strategies are all factors to consider in the goal of reducing the risk of CBRN WMDs from spreading around the world. Security Council Resolution 1540 is one option that nations are considering and that would lead to a theoretically enforceable UN decision. However, the fact remains that enforcing regulations on the world’s stage is highly inconsistent and depends upon the good will of all states involved. The moment a state no longer wants to play by the rules of the UN, the effective force of the resolution is null and void, and other states take immediate notice.

Additionally, the rising tension around the world between nations, from Russia to China to the US to the states in the Middle East has fueled a rise in demand for weapons. The US and Russia have ended their non-proliferation treaties and there have been plenty of signals in the mainstream media that Cold War 2.0 is now here, with the stockpiling of WMDs a certainty. The use of poxies in the last Cold War was evident and this time around the same utilization of proxies is bound to occur as well. Already this can be seen with Iran, which has threatened to support proxy non-state actors in fighting the US in the Middle East. If Iran develops WMDs it is almost a certainty that it will provide these to non-state actors as they fight the US.

Counter-proliferation strategies like those implemented by the FBI may work to some degree, but these efforts require a great deal of collaboration among nations and agencies, and other actions are being taken at state department levels that undermine what these agencies are doing. In the end, there is a lot of uncertainty around how to stop the spread of WMDs, and Lang (1932) may be correct in that the only chance of stopping their spread is the reigning in of personalities and improving of the character of the world’s leaders.

References

Asada, M. (2008). Security Council Resolution 1540 to combat WMD…