Aum Shinrikyo

Poison Gas/Chemical Warfare usage, while not harming physical structures preventing the collateral damage of homes and buildings, causes a high casualty rate in all living things. It is indescriminate and robs life equally be they related or not to a target of military or strategic importance. Gas usage has been widely considered uncivilized, but the French resorted to its usage in August, 1914 during the first World War in an attempt to rout the Germans. Unfortunately, the Germans were the first to give gas warfare serious development and it became used extensively before the war was over. On the battlefield it prooved effective in eliminating hostile threats in an inhumane way, but this does not make it morally acceptable. In more recent times ISIS has been reported to using Poison Gas in Syria against both military and civilians in an indescriminate manner. This sort of attack ignores international laws as well as inhumanely cause widespread harm. In this day and age, this sort of attack is unnecessary and is why it was outlawed in the first place even back during the first World War.

Chemical warfare, while horrible, proved to be unwieldy and unpredictable, and relatively easy to counter. After some limited successes against unprepared opponents, the use of chemical gas had very little tactical benefit; the recognition of this limited utility is that after widespread use in 1915 - except for the short-lived effects of the introduction of mustard gas in 1917 - gas was abandoned by both sides as an effective tactic.

Frist of all, in the Second Battle of Ypres, the Germans introduced the first use of poisonous gas. When poison gas first introduced it was a popular weapon choice and would be the weapon to change the outcome of the war. The Germans surprisingly attack the Allies, where the used lethal chloride gas against them. The gas was deadly and killed over one thousand soldiers. (1) It also allowed a significant advanced for the Germans in the war. The gas usage continued to grow throughout the war. In the end, many Allied countries started chemical weapons research. Gas warfare became common but effective actions were used to protect the troops. After World War 1, poison was use for a while but in today’s war it is no longer allowed. Instead of poisonous gas, chemical warfare is used. Chemical weapons come in a variety of forms and are used for several different techniques.

Chemical and biological agents can certainly inflict devastating damage on a country's population. However, what is the likelihood the Saddam Hussein would have used them on the United States or even our allies in the region? Recent history demonstrates that it was not very likely. Up until the first Gulf War, Iraq was an ally, in some sense of the word, of the United States. The US government supported Saddam Hussein in his battle with Iran because we opposed the Shi'a fundamentalists in Tehran. We gave Hussein, through American contractors, many of the chemical agents we

Most famously used in the incineration of 64 Japanese cities in the1940’s, napalm scorched more to death than in the atomic explosions in Nagasaki and Hiroshima (Bernard). Many still pose the question, why napalm instead of atomic weapons? During the destruction of the Japanese landscape, each atomic detonation had a price tag of $13.5 billion while each napalm destruction was only a slim $83,000 per metropolis (Norris). Most recently, during the siege of Aleppo, the Russian and Syrian governments alike, have been accused of using these incendiary bombs in the rebel occupied area. During this siege, when civilians “see barrels falling from the sky they hope they are explosives and not napalm”

The chemical sector within the United States is a necessary element to the economy, security, and the well-being of personnel. The appeal of a chemical sector and the destruction it could create would be an ideal target for terrorists to strike. Facilities within the United States use, manufacture, store, transport, or deliver chemicals that encompass everything from petroleum, refineries, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and hardware stores (Department of Homeland Security, 2010). Multiple facilities that utilize chemicals could be exposed to a treat, which leaves the facility vulnerable to attacks. The consequences of the attack could be detrimental to both public health and safety; therefore, the goals for the chemical sector are to (Department of Homeland Security, 2010,

Chemical warfare was starting to gain momentum during the First World War After using less than ideal equipment from the British against German forces, the United States needed to gain an edge for fighting into the future to increase their chances at mission success. The United States gained experience with chemical weapons from the First World War and after transitioning from World War I to World War II various improvements were made to enhance the capabilities of the Chemical Weapons Service. Colonel Lewis McBride was directly responsible for changing the Chemical Weapons Service and helped in securing America’s ideals; taking the United States into the future with new and improved chemical weapons technologies.

The first World war chemical weapons were used then outlawed for combat. “Unlike when the U.S. was the only nuclear power and first used the technology against Japan without fear of reciprocation” ( The Ch.1 The Dangers). As a country we didn’t know the effects of a bomb on a living city, but now we know the consequences. Now what

If a country has chemical agents and are harboring or funding terrorist organization, there is a direct threat posed to the United States, as this may give the terrorists access to the chemical agents.

There are thousands of injured and unknown dead at this time in Tokyo, Japan. This is a likely headline from the day Aum Shinrikyo launched a successful chemical weapon attack on the subway system in Tokyo. In this paper, it going to show the full extent of the threat they pose to the world. It will also talk about how CBRN agent used by them is still a threat to US by current terrorist groups in the world. The threat of CBRN weapons are never going way and in future will become worse with the advancement in technologies.

The purpose of this essay is to deal with the fact that chemical warfare should be brought back to modern warfare strategies. As Warren Rudman said, “And they will tell you unequivocally that if we have a chemical or biological attack or a nuclear attack anywhere in this country, they are unprepared to deal with it today, and that is of high urgency.” Rudman’s words are true in what they say and that we should do everything to counter-act his statement. Biological weapons are a key to outstanding success in war and therefore, I strongly suggest that chemical warfare is an effective and producible weapon tactic that can be used on today’s battlefield.

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.

The use of poisonous gasses contributed to less than 1% of war fatalities and less than 2% of war casualties. However, the real power behind chemical weapons was not the effectiveness of the gas, but the fear that came with the deployment of the gasses. Soldiers, the factory workers who made the weapons, and ordinary civilians had a deep, psychological fear of the gas due to the excruciating and slow death that followed being exposed to these deadly chemicals.

After the gulf wars, a ceasefire was negotiated between the United Nations coalition and Iraq. During the ceasefire, the United Nations became aware that Iraq had started a biological warfare program in the 1980s, as well as a chemical warfare program. Upon further investigation, they found that these programs had not continued after the war. As a result, the United States main focus moving forward was the removal of the Saddam regime, their official foreign policy for years to come focused on this goal. With the suspicions that Saddam Hussein had the abilities to acquire weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration going as far as to claim he already had them, the United States and other countries began devising a plan of action. These countries strongly believed that Iraq was a treat to its neighbors and the rest of the world, and that the only solution was to invade Iraq. The United States invading Iraq in 2003 was a turning point in the reason why relationship between Iraq and the United States is the way it is today.

     Laqueur sheds enlightenment into a new arena for terrorism: Arms of Mass Destruction. The chemical and biological weapons of yesterday are available and relatively cheap on today’s open market. Mr. Laqueur goes into depth on previous usages by terrorist organizations using these types of weapons as well as the