Table Of ContentBIOLOGICAL DISASTER
MANAGEMENT CONTENTS
Vol. 10 Preface
1. Introduction 1
2. Chronology 12
3. Dictionary 23
Bibliography 266
Index 269
PREFACE
The twentieth century witnessed the creation and development
of Weapons of Mass Destruction: nuclear, chemical, and biological.
While such weapons have been used in major wars, regional
conflicts, and terrorism, this chapter will focus on the latter.
Weapons of Mass Destruction all have the potential to create mass
casualties, public panic, and enormous property destruction. They
represent an existing and growing security and safety risk for all
the citizens of the world. Terrorists now have an improved ability
to collect information, raise money, and disseminate rhetoric.
Advanced information technology available through the Internet
allows extremists to communicate widely and efficiently.
Additionally, publicly available databases serve as repositories
for technical information relating to weapons production. Another
important factor is that Weapons of Mass Destruction, together
with the materials and technology used to make them, are
increasingly available. Many of these materials are widely available
for legitimate commercial purposes. Moreover, the disintegration
of the former Soviet Union has increased concerns about the
protection, control, and accountability of Weapons of Mass
Destruction, related materials and technologies, and the potential
unemployment and proliferation of thousands of scientists skilled
in the field. Afinal factor is the relative ease of manufacture and
delivery of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Facilities required to
produce radiological, biological, and chemical weapons are small
and hard to detect, compared with those associated with nuclear
weapons. In this book we will discuss about the Biological Disaster
and their impacts on the environment, society and coming
generations.
— Author
Introduction 1
1
INTRODUCTION
Human experience with nuclear, biological, and chemical
(NBC) warfare has been limited by comparison with conventional
forms of warfare. Our experience with nuclear warfare is confined
to a period of less than one week during what turned out to be
the end of World War II, when the United States successfully used
two nuclear weapons (then popularly called atomic bombs) against
targets in Japan.
The necessity for dropping of those weapons continues to be
debated, although Japan’s nearly immediate decision to surrender
is certain to have limited the loss of life, other injuries, and the
destruction of the landscape and infrastructure that would have
accompanied a military invasion by conventional arms.
The emergence of nuclear warfare paralleled the development
of nuclear physics. As understanding of the fundamental nature
of the atom and its components improved, the prospects of
releasing energy from the atom and for harnessing that energy
became increasingly apparent to scientists, political figures, and
the public.
As early as World War I, science-fiction writers were crafting
stories featuring atomic energy as sources for good and evil. The
notion of a nuclear weapon developed more slowly. The scope of
World War II proved important to mar-shalling the political will,
the proper cadre of scientists and engineers, and the financial
resources to succeed in first demonstrating that nuclear chain
reactions could be controlled and then constructing weapons using
such reactions as the principal element in the explosion.
2 Introduction Introduction 3
Those scientists who contributed to the growth of nuclear Disease caused by pathogens such as those responsible for
physics in the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century anthrax, cholera, plague, and smallpox has long been an
set the stage for nuclear warfare. Some of the major contributors inescapable element of war, both among the combatants and
to the new field of nuclear physics became direct participants in within civilian populations. Prior to the availability of prompt
developing or attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Examples medical care and antibiotics in the latter half of the 20th century,
include Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, Enrico Fermi, Werner wartime deaths and injuries from noncombat causes such as these
Heisenberg, Otto Hahn, and Andrei Sakharov. diseases routinely were greater in numbers than were those from
Several of these same scientists would later become forceful combat causes. Tying such disease outbreaks to deliberate use of
these pathogens during war or at any other time is difficult, owing
advocates against the use of these weapons. Such advocacy
to the challenge of differentiating deliberate use from natural
occasionally came at a significant personal price relative to their
outbreaks, obscuring our ability to determine whether biological
freedom to continue pursuing scientific research.
warfare has occurred and, if so, its effectiveness. Furthermore, the
By the end of the 20th century, the development of nuclear
usefulness of such weapons as a means of warfare is questionable,
weapons had become an engineering challenge, and the emphasis
given the existence of natural and acquired resistance to pathogens
on addressing fundamental scientific issues lessened.
in any large human population and the possibility that any
This change brought with it an increased prospect for the deliberate release could affect one’s own military forces and civilian
spread of nuclear weapons, as success in engineering developments population.
often yields more willingly to time, money, and a trial-and-error
Use of BW in acts of terrorism and against civilian targets
approach than do breakthroughs in basic research. An international
seems more likely to produce results that might be deemed
trade in nuclear weapon technology has emerged, brought to light
satisfactory by military analysts and planners. The fall 2001
by discoveries in Iraq and Libya and by the news of the activities
experience in the United States with the release of anthrax through
of Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan. This trade has increased the risk
the U.S. postal system demonstrates the keen potential for biological
that the world might witness another episode of nuclear warfare.
materials to cause mass disruption, although the casualties incurred
The course of biological warfare and modern use of biological were limited to five deaths and 17 confirmed injured. This
weapons (BW) are difficult to track. By contrast to nuclear warfare, experience, however, showed that BW could be exceedingly simple
no fundamental scientific breakthroughs appear to have facilitated in design—in this case, an envelope loaded with anthrax spores.
the development of BW. It is difficult to credit any eminent biologist This simplicity and the natural availability of pathogens contrast
with contributing directly to the development of such weapons. sharply with the skills and technology required for successful
Rather, biological warfare appears to be an outgrowth of the construction of nuclear weapons.
recognition that biological organisms cause diseases in humans The modern age of chemical warfare might be dated to
and other animals and that these diseases can be used to advantage Germany’s 22 April 1915 use of chlorine against French territorial
during war. This recognition was made possible partly by the and Canadian troop positions near Ypres, Belgium. That use
development in the 19th century by German biologist and physician provoked immediate condemnation from the Allies, but they
Robert Koch of four postulates— Koch’s Postulates—which specify promptly and successfully undertook efforts to retaliate in kind,
the conditions that must be met in order to determine whether making World War I notable as the only major conflict in which
a given pathogen is the causative agent for a given disease. Prior both sides used chemical weapons (CW). The course taken by
to this achievement, the causes of diseases were often ascribed to chemical warfare during World War I involved many of the most
had humors or miasmas.” eminent chemists of the time, including future chemistry Nobel
4 Introduction Introduction 5
Laureates Fritz Haber and Walther Nernst. The chemicals selected used in combat. Large stockpiles of the nerve agents accumulated
for use in weapons were a mix of well-known substances commonly in the United States and the Union of Soviet Social Republics
used by industry, such as chlorine, phosgene, and chloropicrin, (USSR), and more modest stockpiles were produced by other
and little-known substances previously discovered but overlooked nations.
until the needs of the war for novel toxic materials caused scientists Although none saw use in combat except during the Iran-Iraq
to widen their search. War in the 1980s, the mere existence of these stockpiles may have
The most notorious substance in this latter category is sulfur exerted a significant effect on military planning and strategy.
mustard, which some observers dubbed the being of chemical Despite this limited experience, NBC warfare continues to
weapons” for its ability to cause large numbers of painful, long- exert a certain fascination among states, especially in states lacking
lasting blisters. Although sulfur mustard was not introduced to democratic governments.
the battlefield until 1917, it was responsible for more than half of
This situation is illustrated by the repeated attempts made by
all the war’s CW casualties.
Iraq during the regime of Saddam Hussein to develop NBC
More generally, knowledge of how toxic chemicals and weapons. Fears that such weapons existed or were being developed
biological substances might be employed as a method of warfare were confirmed in the aftermath of the 1991 Gulf War. Persistent
evolved in conjunction with the industrial and scientific concerns that Iraq was continuing to pursue such weapons fuelled
infrastructure that brought about the large-scale production of the 2003 invasion. In October 2006, the dictatorial regime of the
chemicals, foodstuffs, and the like. Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) captured
Such an infrastructure provided equipment, production the world’s attention when it exploded a nuclear device, although
protocols, and analytical techniques from, for example, the chemical the explosion was widely viewed as a fizzle.
industry and its research laboratories for CW production. Prior Repeated efforts have been made to restrict or prohibit the
to these developments, chemical and biological warfare (CBW) development, stockpiling, and use of NBC weapons, reflecting the
essentially consisted of poisoning by persons who had little or no nearly universal revulsion with which such weapons are viewed.
understanding of the underlying physiochemical processes. These efforts have met with
CW surfaced occasionally in the decades following World some success, as witnessed by the ongoing destruction of the
War I, often in conflicts where one adversary had major advantages CW stock-piles in accordance with the Chemical Weapons
in terms of protection and defense against such weapons. Notable Convention (CWC) and under the auspices of the Organization
examples of this situation are the use of CW by Spain during the for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). But failures of
conflict in Morocco (1921–1927), Italy in Ethiopia (1935–1937), and international treaties and arms control agreements were
Japan during its fighting on the Asian mainland (1932–1945). highlighted by the discoveries of the United Nations Special
Chemical weapons were stockpiled but never used on any Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM), the International Atomic Energy
measurable scale by the major combatants during World War II Agency (IAEA), and the United Nations Monitoring, Verification,
in Europe (1939–1945). and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) during their work in
Iraq.
Major developments in novel CW, especially the
organophosphorus nerve agents, took place during and Attempts to restrict or prohibit these weapons have been
immediately after that war. The nerve agents grew out of industrial carried out on ad hoc, unilateral, bilateral, and multilateral bases.
research into pesticides and became a unique class of toxic In 1989, for example, the United States and the Soviet Union
substances, offering perceived advantages in terms of effects if concluded a memorandum of understanding meant to facilitate
6 Introduction Introduction 7
agreement on the eventual destruction of the two countries’ The regime has nevertheless been under severe strain since
respective CW stockpiles. the beginning of the 1990s. This is partly because the Cold War
In the early 1990s, the United Kingdom and United States ended, thus, in the view of some, reducing the political pressure
engaged in a secret trilateral process with the USSR (and later on the P-5 to continue to remain firmly committed to eliminating
with Russia) to ascertain the status of the former Soviet BW their nuclear stockpiles for the foreseeable future. Another setback
program. Results were mixed. to the regime occurred in 1991 when the extent of Iraq’s clandestine
nuclear weapon program became apparent following intrusive
In 2003 Britain and the United States engaged in a similar
inspections carried out in that country by the IAEA under the
process with Libya in which the two countries, with the later
terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 681, under
involvement of the IAEA and OPCW, verified Libya’s renunciation
which hostilities from the first Gulf War were ended.
of NBC weapons and longer-range missiles. Measures taken to
restrict or prohibit NBC weapons may also be divided according Finally, the withdrawal of North Korea from the NPT in the
to whether they are demand side or supply side. Supply-side early 1990s following strong indications that country was secretly
measures essentially consist of the development and effective reprocessing and diverting nuclear fuel for use in a possible
implementation of export controls, while demand-side measures clandestine nuclear weapon program prompted widespread
consist of effectively implementing multilateral agreements that international concern.
prohibit or restrict such weapons. Finally, ad hoc arrangements A series of more recent nuclear tests carried out by India
of like-minded states (such as the Proliferation Security Initiative, (1998), Pakistan (1998), and North Korea (2006), none of which
PSI) have been developed. are currently party to the NPT, has reinforced the view that the
The principal international legal instrument against the regime is under severe strain.
acquisition or use of nuclear weapons is the 1968 Nonproliferation The United States has also effectively ended sanctions and
Treaty (NPT). Signatories to the NPT fall into two categories: non– most restrictions on nuclear-related technology and equipment
nuclear weapon states (NNWS) and those states that possessed transfers for India and, to a lesser extent, Pakistan. Moreover, the
nuclear weapons at the time the treaty entered into force. 2006 U.S.-India Peaceful Atomic Energy Cooperation Act requires
The treaty affirms the right of all its members (currently totaling changes to the export control regulations of the members of the
142) to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, such as for Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), an organization that attempts to
medical research, food safety, and electricity generation. The treaty prevent the spread of nuclear weapons by coordinating export
obliges the nonpossessor states to conclude safeguards agreements control policies and regulations.
with the IAEA, located in Vienna, and to allow the organization Other NSG members and observers have expressed concern
to verify these states’ compliance with the treaty in order to prevent that an exemption for India would particularly undermine the
the diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful purposes to nuclear NPT and would adversely affect the viability of the international
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. nonproliferation regime generally. India maintains that it considers
For their part, the nuclear weapon possessor states that are the NPT to be inherently discriminatory in that it allows for
signatories—China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the nuclear weapon WXaves and WXave-nots and reiterates that it is
United States, referred to as the 5"—are obliged to work in good not a member of the treaty.
faith toward complete and final nuclear disarmament. These five Other states in the region, including Pakistan, will also consider
nations have periodically reiterated their commitment to work further how their political and security interests might be affected.
toward achieving this goal. A state may conclude, for example, that, once achieved, the
8 Introduction Introduction 9
possession of nuclear weapons can assist in facilitating a periodic unfounded allegations of BW use. In December 2006 the
broadening and deepening of international economic and military Sixth Review Conference of the BTWC agreed on a series of
cooperation and will promote a consolidation of its domestic and annual meetings to be held in 2007–2010.
regional political standing.
The meetings will, among other things, consider measures to
The IAEA has taken steps to strengthen its safeguards system, promote effective implementation of the treaty, to improve
partly by concluding with NPT member states special agreements biosafety and biosecurity at biological facilities, and to improve
that allow for more frequent routine inspector access to undeclared national capabilities for disease surveillance, detection, and
facilities and areas adjacent to declared facilities as well as diagnosis. These goals will be achieved partly through the
environmental sampling. establishment of a temporary treaty implementation support unit
The IAEA also continues to implement a verification system (ISU). The BTWC, together with other international mechanisms,
that includes the placing of seals at key points in the nuclear can be effectively used to clarify BW-related concerns provided
facilities of NNWS to help detect possible diversion of nuclear there is sufficient political interest and will by states.
materials and video monitoring of nuclear facilities in the NNWS. The primary international legal instrument against CW is the
The P-5 states do not place their military nuclear facilities under CWC, which is implemented by the OPCW, based in The Hague.
IAEA safeguards except in a limited number of instances in order No compliance concern against other member states has been
to serve as a confidence-building measure (CBM). The IAEA has formally raised within the treaty regime.
also taken measures to address a major loophole in the traditional
Some compliance concerns, often of a technical (as opposed
verification system, namely, how to capture activities where no
to Tundamental) nature have, however, been informally raised
nuclear materials are present.
and addressed under the CWC provisions for consultations,
The loophole is due to the fact that traditional IAEA safeguards
cooperation, and fact-finding. Much of the compliance-related
have been structured to verify that declared nuclear materials do
discussion relates to the broader question of how much of a
not go unaccounted for. The IAEA currently has greater authority
nation’s past offensive CW program and current CW defense
to use open-source information and information provided by
establishment activities should be declared and verified by on-site
member states to perform countrywide analyses of individual
inspections. Member states (D’tates Parties) to the CWC have also
NPT member states. Another key challenge for the IAEA is to try
expressed concern about the fact that the two states with the
to ensure that it conducts its work in a manner that does not
largest CW stockpiles (the United States and Russia) will be unable
undermine the principle of equal treatment of member states that
to meet their CWC-mandated destruction deadlines, which require
are in good standing of their treaty obligations. Otherwise the
the stockpiles to be destroyed by no later than April 2012.
moral, political, or legal legitimacy of the NPT regime might be
The CWC States Parties are also considering how the treaty’s
questioned.
verification regime should be structured once CW destruction
The main international legal instrument against BW is the
operations have been essentially completed (old and abandoned
1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC). The
chemical weapons will continue to be periodically recovered for
treaty’s weak mechanisms for verifying compliance were
the foreseeable future). This includes the level of intrusiveness
underlined by allegations in the late 1970s and 1980s that the
and scope of chemical industry inspections.
USSR employed mellow Rain mycotoxins in Afghanistan and
The principal verification challenge in the NBC field is how
Southeast Asia (which have since been largely discounted) and
to evaluate accurately and precisely the intended purpose for
confirmation that the Soviets pursued an offensive BW program
materials, technologies, and equipment that can support either a
after the BTWC had entered into force. There have also been
10 Introduction Introduction 11
peaceful or a prohibited military program. For example, nuclear recipient of the shipment and will use the materials and equipment
fuel cycle technologies have legitimate and peaceful applications for nonprohibited purposes). Export control arrangements, such
in the field of generating power, but these same technologies as the NSG, have been criticized for placing undue restrictions on
might be used to support a nuclear weapon program. This sort the rights of all nations to chemical-, biological-, and nuclear-
of problem surfaced when it became clear that India had diverted related materials and equipment that can be used either for peaceful
nuclear technologies, know-how, and materials provided to it by purposes or to support NBC weapon programs. Whether a given
the United States under the atoms for Peace program, using them shipment of material is to be used to support an NBC program
for its national program to develop a nuclear weapon. Because of is usually the subject of classified intelligence and law enforcement
such experiences, there is a view that no state should be allowed information that often cannot be fully shared among states. Such
to develop a full nuclear fuel cycle and that some key elements information may also be ambiguous or open to political
of the cycle should be placed under some form of international interpretation.
control. A major historical theme of continuing relevance is how work
A related challenge is determining whether a national to develop or protect against NBC weapon programs can or should
program is solely defensive in nature or supports the offensive be justified in legal and political terms. It is hoped that this
use of NBC weapons. Arms control and disarmament agreements dictionary will help to provide a historical context to the
provide some guidance, but few specifics. The BTWC has a general- consideration of these issues, as well as to the broader political
purpose criterion (GPC) banning all microbial or other biological and technical challenges of the future.
agents or toxins except for nonprohibited purposes. The CWC,
which also has a GPC, defines a CW as consisting of one or more
of three elements:
1. Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where
intended for purposes not prohibited by the treaty (i.e.,
not as a method of warfare)
2. Munitions and devices specifically designed to cause death
or harm through the use of such toxic chemicals
3. Any equipment specifically designed to be used directly
in connection with such chemicals, munitions, and devices
The GPC is the means by which the two conventions ensure
that future technological and scientific developments are covered
by the treaty regime. Uncertainties about ambiguous CBW program
indicators stem partly from the consideration of how to apply the
GPC in practice.
Difficulties that have been encountered in implementing export
controls designed to stop NBC weapon programs include agreeing
on guidelines for achieving an internationally harmonized and
politically acceptable set of guidelines to inform the drafting of
national export control regulations and ensuring that and user
certificates are accurate (i.e., that a declared end user is in fact the
12 Chronology Chronology 13
1917 12 July: In fighting outside Ypres, Germany introduces use
of weapons containing sulfur mustard. Its persistency and
delayed effects cause sulfur mustard to be labeled the king
of chemical weapons.”
1919 28 June: The Peace Treaty of Versailles is concluded with
2
Germany, ending the hostilities of World War I. Article 171
of this treaty states in part: the use of asphyxiating, poisonous
or other gases and all analogous liquids, materials or devices
CHRONOLOGY being prohibited, their manufacture and importation are
strictly forbidden in Germany. The same applies to materials
specially intended for the manufacture, storage and use of the
429 B.C. Spartans forces use an early form of chemical warfare said products or devices. August–September: British forces
(CW) by burning wood soaked with pitch and sulfur at the operating in the White Sea region of northern Russia use
siege of Plataea, thereby choking defenders. chemical warfare (CW) against Bolshevik troops during the
A.D. 670 Approximate date Greek fire invented. Russian Civil War.
1854 British chemist Lyon Playfair proposes that artillery shells 1921 November: Spanish forces begin using chemical weapons
be filled with cacodyl cyanide as a way to help British and (CW) in their fight against rebels in Morocco, which Spain
French forces to capture Sevastopol from the Russians. The claims as a colony. Chloropicrin, phosgene, and sulfur mustard
proposal is rejected. will be used, with some of the weapons coming from stockpiles
left over from World War I and others from a specially
1861–1865 During the U.S. Civil War, John Doughty proposes
filling chlorine into artillery shells, Joseph Lott proposes constructed factory outside Melilla, Spain.
spraying chloroform onto Confederate troops using a fire 1922 Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
engine, and Capt. E. C. Boynton proposes using cacodyls- (USSR) sign the Treaty of Rapallo, pledging cooperation on
filled grenades against Confederate ships. None of these economic and military matters. Germany provides technical
chemical warfare (CW) proposals appears to have been expertise on chemical warfare (CW) and equipment to the
followed up. USSR in exchange for laboratory space and permission to
1874 27 August: The International Declaration Concerning the carry out CW field trials at Shikhany, Russia. 6 February: The
Laws and Customs of War (the Brussels Declaration) is signed Treaty of Washington of 1922 Relating to the Use of
at the Brussels Conference of 1874. The declaration, which Submarines and Noxious Gases in Warfare is opened for
never entered into force, condemned the use of chemical signature in Washington, D.C. Five nations will sign, but the
weapons (CW) and banned the use of poison as a method of treaty fails to enter into force. 18 April: Germany issues patent
warfare. number 351,894 to chemist Ferdinand Flury for a method of
1899 The Hague Gas Projectile Declaration is issued. pest control. The patent covers a group of chemicals given the
trade name Zyklon. The most infamous of these, Zyklon B,
1915 22 April: Germany initiates the modern age of chemical
will be used extensively to exterminate humans in Nazi
warfare (CW) by releasing chlorine against French colonial
Germany’s concentration camps.
and Canadian troops outside Ypres, Belgium. The release is
successful and spawns a protracted period of CW use by all 1928 8 February: The Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in
combatants during World War I. War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous, or Other Gases, and of
14 Chronology Chronology 15
Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, more popularly known 10 kilograms (22 pounds) of uranium-235 would be sufficient
as the 1925 Geneva Protocol, enters into force. to produce a nuclear explosion.
1935 American chemist Kyle Ward Jr. publishes a scientific 1942 June: The U.S. War Department tasks the Army Corps of
article on tris(2-chloroethyl) amine, the first of a novel chemical Engineers to establish the Manhattan Engineering District
warfare (CW) group known as the nitrogen mustards. 3 October: (MED), a secret effort to develop a nuclear weapon. MED will
Italy attacks Abyssinia (present-day Ethiopia and Eritrea). become more popularly known as the Manhattan Project. 2
Fighting will continue for several years, with repeated uses December: The first self-sustaining chain fission reaction takes
of CW by Italy. place in a nuclear pile at the University of Chicago.
1936 23 December: German chemist Gerhard Schrader discovers 1943 June: President Roosevelt states that the United States will
tabun, which becomes the first member of a new class of not initiate use of chemical warfare (CW), but reserves the
chemical warfare (CW) agents called organophosphorus nerve right to retaliate in kind if attacked with such weapons. 16
agents. Schrader will later discover sarin. November: The ALSOS Mission begins. This U.S.-led scientific
1937–1945 Japanese forces occupying Manchuria and portions intelligence field mission is tasked to determine the extent
of China establish a network of chemical warfare (CW) and of Germany’s nuclear weapon program. That mission will
biological warfare (BW) facilities centred on Unit 731, Harbin, later be expanded to include Germany’s CW and biological
Manchuria, and repeatedly make use of CW and BW, including warfare (BW) programs. 2 December: German bombers sink
lewisite, sulfur mustard, and plague. the USS John Harvey in the harbor of Bari, Italy, causing
extensive injuries from the ship’s secret cargo of chemical
1938 December: German scientists Otto Hahn and Fritz
weapons.
Strassmann bombard uranium with neutrons, breaking the
1944 German chemist Konrad Henkel discovers the
uranium apart into two smaller atoms and releasing energy.
organophosphorus nerve agent soman.
1939 11 February: The journal Nature features an article by Lisa
1945 16 July: badget detonates successfully at the Trinity Test
Meitner and Robert Otto Frisch providing mathematical proof
that the Hahn-Strassmann experiments conducted the previous Site, near Alamogordo, New Mexico, becoming the first man-
December resulted in a process that Frisch names nuclear made nuclear explosion. 6 August: U.S. Army Air Forces
fission. 2 August: Physicist Albert Einstein addresses the first plane Enola Gay drops the little Boy nuclear bomb over
of several letters to U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt Hiroshima, Japan. 9 August: The United States drops the hat
in which he describes how uranium, through a chain fission Man nuclear bomb over Nagasaki, Japan.
reaction, could be used as a powerful energy source and 24 October: George W. Merck submits his final report (the Merck
expresses concern that Germany might be able to harness this Report) to U.S. secretary of war Robert P. Patterson, describing
energy as a weapon. the U.S. World War II biological warfare (BW) program and
1940 The United Kingdom establishes the Military Applications concluding that the United States should continue BW
of Uranium Disintegration or AUD Committee to study the development. 15 November: The ALSOS Mission concludes.
possibility of developing a nuclear weapon. 1946 6 September: The U.S. Army Chemical Corps (CmlC) is
1941 Britain establishes the Directorate of Tube Alloys, a cover created out of the Chemical Warfare Service.
name for its secret nuclear weapon development program. 1947 January: The Manhattan Project ceases its work, with the
July: The Military Applications of Uranium Disintegration or transfer of its activities to the newly established Atomic Energy
AUD Committee releases its report in which it estimates that Commission (AEC).
