鈥淭HE US is extremely concerned that several states are conducting offensive biological weapons programmes while publicly avowing compliance with the [biological weapons treaty],鈥� John Bolton, US arms-control supremo, told the Heritage Foundation in Washington this week. Who could disagree?
What he did not say is that the US may be one of the biggest offenders. It seems some of the non-lethal weapons being considered by the US military would violate treaties banning biological and chemical weapons (see Behind the smokescreen). This poses a dilemma, as weapons that allow the good guys to stop the baddies without killing anybody seem like a Good Thing.
Microbes that can stop a ship full of terrorists, enzymes that can cripple a gun, or drugs that sedate a rioter are not allowed under existing arms treaties, unless the treaties are 鈥渋nterpreted鈥� to breaking point. Governments should consider whether these new weapons need new rules. Maybe some should be allowed. Or perhaps having even the most innocuous of chemical or biological weapons puts us on the slippery slope. What we need is open debate, not secrecy. If the US ignores treaties, how can it expect others to abide by them? Such behaviour can only undermine the treaties, and give other would-be biological and chemical warriors a free hand. The consequences of that are likely to be far worse than not developing metal-eating bugs.
Advertisement