Will Chemical Weapons be Banned?

SolitaryRoad.com

Website owner:  James Miller

[ Home ] [ Up ] [ Info ] [ Mail ]

The following is from Thomas Sowell. Barbarians inside the Gates. pp. 91 - 93

_____________________________________________________________________________

Will Chemical Weapons be Banned?

THE PROPOSED TREATY TO BAN CHEMICAL WEAPONS is another painful reminder of how easily we are misled by words. Who could possibly be against banning chemical weapons? The real question is whether this treaty—or any treaty—can actually do that.

Many people with military backgrounds, including past Secretaries of Defense Caspar Weinberger and James Schlesinger, oppose Senate ratification of the treaty precisely because it will increase the dangers, rather than reduce them. Politicians from both parties have lined up on the opposite side, in favor of the treaty, because it makes more sense politically than it does militarily.

Politically, what is at stake is "American leadership" in the "new world order." In other words, our political leaders will have egg on their faces internationally if they cannot get this treaty ratified by the Senate—and that in turn will make it harder for them to exert influence in the future.

But, when it comes to what the treaty is supposedly about—banning chemical weapons—it is not merely inadvisable but down-right dangerous.

Ask yourself: Why did Hitler not use chemical weapons against the Allies during World War II, especially since he had no qualms about chemically killing millions of defenseless civilians in his concentration camps? The answer is that he knew that gassing Americans would lead to Americans gassing far more Germans.

We had chemical weapons and he knew it. That is why Hitler didn't use his. There is nothing complicated about this—either then or now. What gets complicated is trying to evade the obvious, in the interest of scoring political points by being on the side of the angels and denouncing chemical weapons.

All weapons are harmful. That is what makes them weapons. It is short-sighted grandstanding for politicians to pretend to be banning weapons that they cannot in fact ban. But that is what makes them politicians.

The joker in all sorts of disarmament treaties throughout this century has been that peaceful nations tend to abide by them while aggressors violate them. That is how Britain got suckered in its naval treaty with Nazi Germany in the 1930s and how both Britain and the United States got suckered in their naval treaty with Japan before that.

Men paid with their lives during World War II for these pre-war political charades that allowed aggressor nations to gain military advantages while peaceful nations held back from building the military deterrents that were needed. For the first two years of that war, the democracies did not win a single major battle against the totalitarian powers—and not many minor battles either.

Eventually, the tide turned, after the United States belatedly began to build up its military forces, but it was touch and go for quite a while. In an age of devastating chemical and nuclear warfare, there may not be any second chances.

Some of the most dangerous countries in the world today are not even going to sign the so-called chemical weapons ban treaty. This is an invitation for us to disarm ourselves of a chemical weapons deterrent, while people like Saddam Hussein remain free to use theirs.

As for other major powers that plan to sign the treaty, how are we to verify whether they will live up to it? And even if we discover that China, for example, is not living up to the treaty, what can we do about it then? Start a war?

Even small powers can build up devastating chemical arsenals because they require no huge facilities. That is also why violations of the treaty can be very difficult to detect, until it is too late.

Why is something so militarily dangerous so politically popular? Mushy wishful thinking on the part of too many Americans, and a cynical exploitation of their feelings by politicians.

Every ban on any kind of weapon—nuclear, chemical or other—is sure to be greeted by cheers in the media. The specifics of these treaties receive little attention. Apparently it's the thought that counts.

Actually, it is the feelings that count politically, since very little thought goes into many of these feelings. Both at home and abroad, those who want weapons banned on paper seldom pause to think that peaceful people are much easier to disarm than violent people—and disarming peaceful people just shifts the balance of power in favor of aggressors, increasing the very dangers you are trying to reduce.

_____________________________________________________________________________

10 June 2024