Gasology

Opening. At Geneva, 39 members of the League of Nations and 4 nonmembers* inquired into the question of controlling traffic in arms and other munitions of war. Count Henri Carton de Wiart, President of the Conference, pointed out in his opening speech that "control" was meant in the French sense of the word (surveillance) and not in the English sense of authority. Much confusion became, nevertheless, rapidly manifest.

Was it to prohibit traffic in arms, or to give a deterrent publicity to the traffic? This question led to argument between arms-producing and nonproducing nations. It was recalled that the U. S. had declined to sign the Saint Germain treaty/- giving as reason that the prohibition of arms export except under license to responsible governments would automatically deprive revolutionaries whose cause was just of their right to revolt. It was contended that prohibition would make producing nations of the non-producers--the last thing to be desired. This question was thrashed out anew. The insistence of many nations made it clear that the scope of this meeting was not prohibitory.

Work. The sum of the Conference's first week's work:

1) Representative Theodore E. Burton of Ohio, head of the U. S. delegation, suggested prohibiting the export of "asphyxiating poisonous gases and analogous liquids or materials or devices." France, Brazil, Poland, Italy, Hungary, China and Japan backed the U. S. The remaining 35 nations were either hostile or silent. The proposal was referred to a subcommittee.

2) The British delegation introduced a motion to exempt from the consideration of the Conference warships, submarines, airships, airplanes and tanks, all of which, on account of their size, cannot be sold secretly and therefore can be controlled by a system of licenses. Referred to committee.

3) Poland wished to have an embargo placed on the sale of bacteria for war purposes. Referred to committee.

4) Hungary asked that materials to be used in defence against gas warfare be eliminated from the agenda of the conference. Referred to committee.

Controversy. The U. S. suggestion to ban gas as a war weapon aroused a storm, reminiscent of the recent Opium Conference (TIME, Dec. 1, 8, Feb. 2, Mar. 2). The friendly enemies of the U. S. were not slow to say: "At it again," thereby meaning that the U. S. was trying to "clean up" the whole arms trading situation instead of approaching the problem step by step. The pros and cons of gas in warfare were debated. The argument against gas can be put in one word: "Inhumane." The argument for gas, although not so well known, has been ably presented. Prof. J. B. S. Haldane is one of the ablest exponents of this viewpoint.

There are four kinds of gases, according to Prof. Haldane, author of Callinicus, A Defence of Chemical Warfare*

1) "Non-irritant gases" poisonous to the lungs in high concentrations. In this category are bromine, phosgene (carbonyl chloride), chlorine and cyanogen compounds. They are easily kept out by respirators and are no longer in military use.

2) Lachrymatory gases such as chloropicrin, ethyl iodoacetate, bromacetone, chloracetone, brommethy-lethyltetone. These are nonfatal gases, except in very high concentrations, momentarily efficacious in high concentrations but easily controlled by respirators or goggles.

3) 'Poisonous smokes made mostly from arsenic compounds (such as diphenylchloroarsine, diphenylcyonoarsine). In small concentrations, these gases have a sternutatory (sneeze causing) effect and in larger concentrations cause acute pain similar to but more violent than that caused by fresh water getting into the nose while bathing. An accompanying symptom is appalling mental distress and misery. They are rarely fatal, but very difficult to control with respirators, owing to the fact that the molecules, moving very slowly, can get through the walls of most masks in effective quantities.

4) Vapor gases, of which the only one used in the War was mustard gas (dichlorethyl sulphide). This gas is 3. blistering penetrant, the effects of which last for a considerable length of time, owing to its slow evaporation. Ground saturated with this liquid cannot be occupied for at least a week. In high concentrations, such as were used, it is certain death, to breathe it without a mask; but although there were 150,000 casualties in the British Army from mustard gas, less than 1 in 40 died and about 1 in 200 became permanently unfit.

It is therefore argued that gas is a more humane weapon than explosives (also strictly chemical weapons) which had a death rate of 1 in 3. There the matter might rest a triumph for the scientists; for most men with active experience of the War believe that they are right. But there is the future to be considered.

The Washington Conference bound the U. S., Britain, France (not ratified), Italy and Japan to refrain from using poisonous gases against one another. (Prof. Haldane remarks: "Of course they will use such humane weapons as bayonets, shells and incendiary bombs.") The Washington Conference did nothing to deter the nations from buying gases in preparation for war. That is left to the League Conference at Geneva.

The fear expressed for the future is that some terrifically powerful gas will be invented which will paralyze cities, slay armies, but this is extremely improbable. Gases are divided into two classes: Those having heavy molecular weight; those whose molecules are light--the most volatile. The first, usually-- vapors, can be absorbed by charcoal independently of their chemical composition; of the second, only a small proportion are poisonous and these are all known and can be guarded against. Irritant smokes present a different problem and may be invented in deadlier forms than are at present known but, as they are invented, a counter-invention is sure to come. In any case, as Prof. Haldane points out, the primary object of gas warfare is to reduce the efficiency of opponents by making them keep their gas masks on and to deny them the use of the ground by saturating it with blistering fluids and others which are severely irritant.

In attacks upon towns, gases and vapors are not very effective (except, of course, that they would cause indescribable panic) for the simple reason that rooms above the ground, level are fairly complete anti-gas chambers, provided that no fires are lit to draw air into them. The destructive capacity of a gas shell or bomb is insignificant. It will be high explosives, which cause houses to crash, that will apparently supply the chief danger to the cities and towns in the next war. Moreover, to get an effective concentration of gas in cities behind the firing lines, an enormous concentration of aircraft, supplying a highly vulnerable target, would be necessary.

*There are SS members of the League; the 4 non-members present were the U.S., Germany, Turkey, Egypt.

/- The first attempt on the part of the League to control trade in armaments. Rejected in 1923 (TIME, Dec. 24, 1923).

*Published by Button, $1.00 - See also THE RIDDLE OF THE RHINE--Victor Lefebre--W. Collins' Sons & Co., Ltd., (10s. 6d.).