[.ca] Preventing the Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (ISBN 0714650447)

Useful survey of a dangerous world:
In an increasingly dangerous world, we need hard thinking about the issues of war and peace. This book, based on a Journal of Strategic Studies special issue, usefully raises the question of what these dangers are. Henning Riecke points out that in 1993 the US government adopted a Defense Counterproliferation Initiative of three tiers: prevent a proliferation threat, deter it, and defend against it (meaning 'preventive' war). NATO adopted this aggressive strategy in 1994. John and Karl Mueller, in an excellent chapter, note that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) have killed about 300,000 people in all history - 100,000 in Japan, the rest in Europe in World War One and in China before World War Two. Yet NATO's economic sanctions against Iraq have killed about one million people and continue killing even "if Iraq complies with its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction", as Albright said. Sanctions amount to killing the hostages without hurting their captor. Instead, the Muellers recommend containment and deterrence, which would reduce suffering while still preventing Iraq from starting a war. All the writers agree that NATO is guilty of alarmism on WMD. Biological weapons are very hard to develop, deploy and control; they have killed very few people. Machine guns killed far more people on one day on the Somme than all biological weapons in history. Chemical weapons are not unfailingly destructive. A 1993 analysis by the US Congress's Office of Technology Assessment found that a ton of Sarin nerve gas, perfectly delivered under absolutely ideal conditions over a heavily populated area against unprotected people, could cause between 3,000 and 8,000 deaths. When Iraq used gas against Iran, 262 died of the 27,000 gassed. When the terrorist group Aum Shinrikyo released Sarin in a Japanese subway in 1995, 12 died of the 1,000 affected. The Western powers could effectively deter other states from using WMD, just as they deterred Iraq during the Gulf War. There is no need for 'preventive' war. As this book proves, WMD use, not WMD possession, is dangerous. The threat is not from states developing WMD, but from NATO's possible reactions.