Chemical Conundrum

Geneva's sometimes dilatory disarmament negotiators have been concentrating since February on a crucial question: What can be done about banning chemical and biological warfare? The answer may be disappointing. All sides are agreed on stopping production of disease-spreading biological agents, which the U.S. renounced last November. But chemicals are something else. Last week James F. Leonard Jr., head of the U.S. delegation in Geneva, rejected Soviet proposals for an outright ban on chemical agents, chiefly because it would be well nigh impossible to enforce.

Leonard pointed out that the globe is already awash in commercial chemicals that could readily be "weaponized" by any country that wanted to cheat on a ban. Many of the gases and agents that caused 1,300,000 deaths or injuries in World War I are now available by the carload for commercial purposes. Several countries produce substantial quantities of phosgene, a "choking agent" now used in plastics, paint and pharmaceuticals. Ten countries, ranging from the Common Market nations to Communist China, produce a yearly total of more than 1,000,000 tons of hydrogen cyanide, a deadly "blood gas" used in dyes. A similar quantity of ethylene oxide, used in detergents and disinfectants, is turned out; mustard gas, World War I's most effective chemical killer, is easily derived from the compound. The latest nerve gases have close cousins in common organophosphorus pesticides; the U.S. produces nearly half of the worldwide output, which exceeds 130,000 tons per year.

Is there any solution to the chemical dilemma? Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is that other nations will follow the lead of the U.S., which has promised no "first use" of chemical agents--however they are labeled.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.