Thesis
     As current problems of terrorism and the war on Iraq, chemical, biological and nuclear warfare (CBW) issues are important and relevant. CBW agents are dangerous, uncontrollable and undifferentiating weapons of mass destructions. Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are capable of mass destruction aimed at killing masses of people. Using CBW agents comes with many ethical dilemmas and consequential side-effects. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are designed to yield a great number of deaths. Regarding the ethical use of CBW, while looking at the larger context of war, one must determine the value of life. As backed by Virtues Ethics, this mass killing caused by CBW is unethical and unjustified.

I. Introduction
II. Types of Biological, Chemical and Nuclear Weapons
     A. Chemical
     B. Biological
     C. Nuclear
III. CBW in Recent History
IV. Legal Aspects of War
     A. Geneva Protocol of 1925
V. Disarmament
     A. United Nations
VI. Ethical Considerations of CBW
     A. Theories that do support CBW
     B. Theories that not support CBW
VII. Conclusion

Introduction
     News of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons seem to plague today's newspapers. Taking a glance at headlines, one would read about current issues regarding Iraqi disarmament of weapons of mass destruction, Russian government intentional use of a gas that killed rebels and hostages, and terrorist threats on the United States. Chemical and biological warfare (CBW) is not a new problem in the war against terror; it was a danger to communities centuries ago.
     There are many accounts of deliberate use of biological or chemical agents during war. Some of these earliest accounts mentioned are found in the 6th century BCE when the Assyrians poisoned enemy wells with rye ergot, a fungus disease. Also at that time Solon of Athens used the purgative herb hellebore, during siege of Krissa. The Bible describes the ten plagues of blood, frogs, gnats, flies, livestock, boils, hail, locusts, darkness and the slaying of the first born; all plagues that God brought about to the Egyptians. In 1346 CE, the Tartar army catapulted corpses of plague victims over Kaffa's city walls. These are just a few examples of many accounts of the use of chemical and biological agents in war.
     Is the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in war ethical? Is there an appropriate time to use them? A dilemma will later be presented for consideration. Different ethical theories can either support or oppose the use of CBW depending on the circumstances. However, chemical, biological and nuclear agents are dangerous, uncontrollable and undifferentiating weapons of mass destructions. Actions must be taken to see that there are no future instances of use during war. However, before one discusses the legal and ethical issues involved with CBW, one must understand what chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are and how they function.

Chemical Weapons
     There are many types of chemical agents that can be used for a variety of effects. Most are not meant to be lethal, but most chemicals at high concentrations can be lethal.
     Vomiting gases are used for riot-control or harassing agents and are only meant to irritate. "The body attempts to counter the irritation either by secreting fluids or by initiating reflex actions, for instance, vomiting," (Rose, 1968, p. 20). It is the incapacitating nature of these responses that gives vomiting gases their harassing effects and name.
     Choking gases irritate the lower branches of the lungs. The gases can destroy the sensitive lung tissue leading to infection (pneumonia, bronchitis) or even block oxygen uptake leading to asphyxia (Rose, 1968, p. 21). Some gases used are chlorine and phosgene.
     Nettle gases are primarily skin irritants, but at higher concentrations cause blistering. An exposure is like being thrown into a bed of stinging nettles (Rose, 1968, p. 21).
     Blood gases are designed to be blood poisons. They are inhaled and then rapidly absorbed into blood where they block the cellular absorption of oxygen. Very small doses can completely block oxygen circulation throughout the body (Rose, 1968, p. 22). Some of the common blood gases are hydrogen cyanide and cyanogen chloride.
     Vesicants, also called blister agents, burn and blister every body tissue with which they come in contact. Mustard gases, a class of vesicants, have no smell and do not cause initial pain or irritation. This is why they are so dangerous and consequently still in the arsenals of many countries fifty years after they were introduced (Rose, 1968, p. 22). Mustard gases are far weaker than nerve gases, but long term exposure could produce the same effects (Hersh, 1968, p. 48).
     Nerve agents are "among the deadliest chemical killers known to mankind" (Hersh, 1968, p. 43). Nerve agents kill quickly because they act as anti-cholinesterases. They work by blocking the enzyme that degrades the nerve signal transmitter, acetylcholine (Hersh, 1968, p. 45; Rose, 1968, p. 23). This has two effects: first the body loses control of nervous system and second is that the neurotransmitter is at such a high concentration that it becomes a poison to the body (Rose, 1968, p. 23). Some nerve agents are tabun, soman, sarin, and VX.
     Incendiary weapons are another type of agent used in chemical warfare. There are two classes, the first being Napalm, a gelled gasoline. Napalm casualties are caused by heat and formation of carbon monoxide. The other type of incendiary weapons is white phosphorus. It is absorbed by the skin and then turns into acids in body, which then burn from within. There is no effective decontamination treatment for white phosphorus, so once it gets to the skin it burns its way to the bone (Hersh, 1968, p. 65).
     Defoliants can be both chemical based and biological based whether the agent is a man-made chemical or a biologic disease like a fungus. Either way, they are meant to kill forests and agricultural lands in efforts to harm people indirectly by affecting plants, land and water. By attacking agricultural lands with defoliants, one also uses starvation as a weapon.  Defoliants fall under a category that bridges the chemical agents from the biological ones. However there is an important distinction between chemical and biological agents. "The distinction between chemical and biological weapons is that chemical weapons consist of artificially engineered compounds, while biological weapons consist of living microscopic organisms," (Solomon, 1999, p. vii).

Biological Weapons
     There are a host of different biological weapons due to the diverseness of biology. Some of the advantages of biological weapons over chemical weapons are that there is a greater variety of agents, they can reproduce by themselves, they are self spreading, they are effective in low doses, and they can be directed towards people instead of material damage. Some of the disadvantages are that biological weapons have a long incubation time, they do not have an immediate effect, and they require certain environmental conditions that people cannot control (Rose, 1968, p. 48). The following are just a few biological weapons that have been used in warfare.
     Anthrax, a bacteria found in nature, usually affects livestock but can be converted to a powder, which is an effective biological weapon. If it is inhaled it can be lethal within 24 hours. It initially causes flu-like symptoms, followed by severe chest congestion.
     Plague occurs naturally in two forms, bubonic (black death) & pneumonic. It is a bacterium that is highly infectious, via airborne droplets from coughing. Both forms can be spread to humans through rats and fleas. The bubonic plague killed millions of Europeans during the 14th century CE.
     Smallpox is a virus that was thought to be obliterated in 1980. Vaccinations were stopped in the United States in 1971 (Biological and Chemical Weapons, 2002). However the US has begun vaccine stockpiles due to the threat of biological terrorism.

Nuclear Weapons
     There are four post-detenation stages that happen after the detonation of a nuclear weapon. First, the blast produces a shock wave many times the speed of sound, which can damage buildings, trees, and the lungs and ear drums of humans. Second, an immense pulse of thermal energy propagates outward at about the speed of light and causes widespread fires (SIPRI, 1977, p. 7). Third, about one third of the nuclear radiation is dissipated during the first minute after detonation and then the rest is dissipated more slowly and widely (SIPRI, 1977, p. 10). These small doses over a long-term can lead to cancer and genetic defects. Lastly, the nuclear radiation that is blown into the stratosphere is carried by wind and the radioactive particles are dispersed over many years throughout the Earth as they fall slowly back to the ground.

Recent History of CBW
     Within the last century more death and destruction has been done by chemical, biological, and nuclear warfare than other centuries combined. World War I was the introduction of CBW as commonly accepted war practice by governments. Countries realized the power and destruction of CBW. Via gas warfare the US killed 91,000 people and Germany attributed another 5000 deaths by chlorine gas (Hersh, 1968, p. 5; Rose, 1968, p. 168). World War II witnessed even more widespread use of deadly chemical, biological and nuclear warfare. The Germans developed gases for wars, used gases in concentration camps, while the US developed nuclear weapons that were later used against Japan, killing thousands of people. The US also used gases, defoliants, napalm and white phosphorus in Vietnam (Rose, 1968, p. 87-98).
     More recently CBW was used in the 1980s when Iraqi President Saddam Hussein ordered the use of poisonous gas in the Iran-Iraq War and also in March 1988 when he ordered its use to stop uprisings among his own people, which subsequently killed 4000 Kurdish people (Solomon, 1999, p. 13). In 1995, a terrorist group exposed commuters on Tokyo train to deadly Sarin nerve gas that killed twelve people (Reuters, 2002). October 26, 2002 in Russia, CBW was used when the government released an anesthetic gas into a theatre that killed 115 of 750 people that Chechen rebels were holding hostage (Anashkina, 2002). Currently, the US homeland security is working to prevent anthrax and smallpox outbreaks, while at the same time working towards worldwide nuclear disarmament.

Legal Aspects of War
     After the use of chemical warfare in World War I, world leaders became worried that other nations would develop more lethal chemicals and that future wars may witness escalating use of CBW. To discourage CBW, a multilateral decision was made to write the Geneva Protocol of 1925. "The Geneva Protocol prohibits two things: 'the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices,' and 'the use of bacteriological methods of warfare,'" (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1971, p. 2). One major flaw of this protocol is that it did not prohibit the production, acquisition, or stockpiling of weapons, nor does it apply to the use for purposes other than war (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1971, p. 2). This oversight in the Geneva Protocol allowed countries to produce and test these weapons. The Geneva Protocol was also ambiguous in the phrasing of its first prohibition: "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases." The word "other" provided much freedom for countries for the development of other gases, like irritant gases and defoliants, not specifically mentioned in the protocol.
     This sense of ambiguity and leeway of "other" gases stated by the Geneva Protocol is quite dangerous. This ambiguity was taken advantage of by the US military when it used defoliants in Vietnam. "Vietnam is a good example of how a limited capability can be readily enlarged once the political barriers to the use of chemicals have been breached. Tactics are quickly developed for their use in a variety of military situations far beyond those originally envisaged," (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1971, p. 87). With the technology and proliferation of CBW rising, legal actions, such as disarmament, must be upheld to prevent future use of CBW.

Disarmament
     Although the use of certain types of chemicals in war is vague, there is a general consensus among world leaders that use of biological weapons is prohibited because of their self-propagating manner and uncontrollability. During 1970, the United States, under President Nixon's endorsement, stated its policy on biological warfare. It is outlined as follows:
1. The use of biological agents and weapons, whether lethal or not, is renounced, with no exception made for humans, animals or plants.
2. Research will be limited to defensive measures such as immunization and safety.
3. Recommendation to dispose of existing stockpiles of biological weapons.
4. Toxins produced by biologics, even though classified under chemical weapons, will be under the same biological ban. (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1971, p. 97).  The United Nations (UN) is working diligently towards nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. Many resolutions, such as START I and II and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), have been passed by the UN and ratified by other countries for this goal.
     Today the world military community is headed towards nuclear disarmement, yet total disarmement will probably never be achieved. Nuclear stockpiles have dropped considerably and are still becoming smaller. In addition nuclear bomb testing has ceased since 1993. Disarmament is necessary for the well-being not only for our country but also for the well-being of the world. Nuclear testing releases nuclear radiation that is dispersed around the Earth and also contaminates nearby areas with radiation. Proliferation is also a UN concern. Superpower nations are not the only countries to possess nuclear weapons. Smaller nations now have nuclear weapons and this worries UN members and larger nations because of the threat that it poses to individual countries and world peace. Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General, said, "If anyone thinks that the CTBT and the Conference have been overshadowed or marginalized by the events of 11 September and their aftermath, I think they will think again. Those events should have made it clear to everyone that we cannot afford further proliferation of nuclear weapons" (Department for Disarmament Affairs, 2002, p. 5).
     Disarmament is rooted in the belief that some countries or groups are not trustworthy of having weapons of mass destruction. Some of these countries and groups claim to have religious reasons for using such weapons. Whatever the reason, we must consider the ethics of CBW.

Ethical Considerations
     Obviously chemical, biological and nuclear war is an ethical topic. All operated in different ways but all are capable of the same mass destruction. A dilemma will be presented for ethical consideration. Drawing a parallel to the Nazi regime in World War II, what should world leaders do if a powerful military nation was killing off millions of people in genocide? To use traditional military force, without the use of CBW, to overthrow the Nazi-like regime would result in massive amounts of casualties on both sides. Should CBW be considered or even implemented?
     Ethical theories that might consider CBW use would be teleological (consequential), deontological (duty) and utilitarianism. Teleology states that the end justifies means, therefore using CBW to save innocent people's lives would justify killing of the Nazi-like regime and the use of CBW. Deontology is a duty oriented view that states that one has a duty to improve the conditions of others (beneficence). Under this view CBW would be justified if innocent people were saved from genocide. Lastly utilitarian view, in general terms, can be described as doing the greatest good for the greatest number of people. In response to our dilemma, a utilitarian view would justify the use of CBW.
     However, there are also some theories of ethics that would not support the use of CBW to save the people. Under a dualistic approach deontology could not support CBW because it says that every individual is worthy of respect. Philosopher Immanuel Kant wrote "Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only" (McCormick, 2002). Here deontology would respect the lives of the oppressive Nazi-like regime and not use CBW to save people from genocide. Virtue Ethics is a moral viewpoint that would state that killing any human being is wrong, and therefore CBW is not justifiable.
     Should this strategy be applied to eradicate the current issues of terrorist groups and Iraq? This is a difficult question because one of the drawbacks of CBW is that it results in far more civilian casualties than a traditional war. Be it nuclear fallout or chemical contamination of water, there are many secondary effects to civilian populations by CBW. "The feelings of distaste have lately been further reinforced as the public has become aware that the use of CBW agents may have secondary effects, some unpredictable, which may have serious consequences on man, animals, and the environment," (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1971, p. 94).
     Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are very dangerous and destructive agents. They are difficult to control once released into an environment because weather factors, like wind, are uncontrollable and unpredictable. Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons do not differentiate between soldiers and innocent civilians. Consequently some people are killed unintentionally. They are also very environmental destructive because CBW agents pollute the plants, ground, air and water.
     Another ethical consideration is the research and development of CBW agents. Researching to make a vaccine requires knowledge of how a CBW agent works and its delivery (bomb, spray, gas). This in turn means possibly researching and developing weapons. Is it ethically responsible for scientists to research and develop agents that do nothing but harm society? Shouldn't knowledge be productive for the betterment of society? A Utilitarian view would agree that researching CBW for the purpose of protecting society through vaccines would be ethically justified even if that research leads to more knowledge and perhaps proliferation of CBW agents.

Conclusion
     As current problems of terrorism and the war on Iraq, CBW issues are important and relevant. Regarding the ethical use of CBW, while looking at the larger context of war, one must determine the value of life. Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are capable of mass destruction aimed at killing masses of people. Even though it may be unethical to use weapons of mass destruction, we must realize that the threat is still present. It may not be ethical to use CBW agents but it is ethical to protect the health and safety of the general population against CBW agents. Using CBW agents comes with many ethical dilemmas and consequential side-effects. Chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons are designed to yield a great number of deaths. As backed by Virtues Ethics, this mass killing caused by CBW is unethical and unjustified.

Anashkina, Nastya. Gas killed hostages in raid. CNN.com. Retrieved October 28, 2002, from CNN web site:           http://asia.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/10/27/moscow.putin/

Biological and Chemical Weapons. Retrieved October 7, 2002, from ABC News web site:           http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/DailyNews/WTC_biochemweapons_subindex.html

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Control of Chemical and Biological Weapons. (1971). New York: Carnegie Endowment           for International Peace.

Department for Disarmament Affairs, The United Nations Disarmament Yearbook. (2002). United Nations: New York: United Nations.

Hersh, Seymor M. (1968). Chemical and Biological Warfare. Indiana: Bobbs-Merill.

McCormick, Dr. Matt. Immanuel Kant-Metaphysics. Retrieved November 18, 2002, from University of Tennessee at Martin web site:           http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/k/kantmeta.htm

Reuters. On anniversary of Japanese subway attack, many fear cult resurgence. Retrieved November 18, 2002, from CNN web site:           http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/asiapcf/9903/20/japan.cult/index.html

Rose, Steven. (1968). CBW: Chemical and Biological Warfare. Boston: Beacon Press.

SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute). (1977). Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Environment. New York: Crane, Russak &           Company.

Solomon, Brian. (1999). Chemical and Biological Warfare. New York: H.W. Wilson.