Connally Debate

Page 1 of 2 Huley Karamali

Neg Answers to: Chemical warfare T/Os 1. Efforts to counter WMD attacks creates more cor orati!e nations. "ainer Schulte #1 Ma$ %&12 'Colonel "ainer (chulte) transformation su
ort *irector at Nato+s ,C-"N Defence COE. / htt ://www.arm$0technolog$.com/features/feature*ssi0c1rne0nato02c1rn0*efence0coe/3 4,oining forces against C-"N threats: Nato+s ,C-"N Defence5 accesse* ,ul$ 6) %&1%

The fact that ten of the 11 s onsoring nations are mem1ers of 1oth Nato an* the E7 means that the foun*ation for fruitful colla1oration is alrea*$ esta1lishe* an* works. 8a!ing the 7( as the other s onsoring nation is of high im ortance as it has im ressi!e ca a1ilities in the area of C-"N *efence) well. such as the Defense Threat "e*uction Agenc$ 'DT"A.. Each nation ro!i*es its own s ecialist knowle*ge. (chulte) for instance) as *irector of the Transformation (u ort De artment is art of a 9erman contingent of three) which inclu*es one NCO in the :essons :earne* E!aluation an* Anal$sis (ection an* one staff officer as the section chief of the Conce ts an* Doctrine (ection. As with other nations) (chulte can) when re;ueste* acti!ate a national <reach 1ack< ca a1ilit$ to ensure a**itional su ort for the COE. 1. NATO is training countries on how to counter C-"N threats. "ainer Schulte #1 Ma$ %&12 'Colonel "ainer (chulte) transformation su
ort *irector at Nato+s ,C-"N Defence COE. / htt ://www.arm$0technolog$.com/features/feature*ssi0c1rne0nato02c1rn0*efence0coe/3 4,oining forces against C-"N threats: Nato+s ,C-"N Defence5 accesse* ,ul$ 6) %&1%

=8ere we are touching the core working areas of the Training) E*ucation an* E>ercise De artment 'TEED.. -esi*e C-"N *efence0relate* tactical courses) such as first res on*er training courses or su ort of the C-"N course at the Nato (chool O1erammergau) this *e artment *ecisi!el$ ensures challenging C-"N0relate* e>ercise inci*ents within the N"? Certification @rocess of Nato<s 2oint

hea*;uarters. The growing mo*elling an* simulation ca a1ilit$ of the COE has alrea*$ 1een utilise* for the Nato NAC 'North Atlantic Council. (eminars)= he remarks. %. Chances of chemical strikes are unlikel$ an* e!en if enacte* NATO is ensuring that countries are rea*$ to counter #. CW DE:ABE"C A( EDT"EME:C DA??AC7:T "ichar* E. Betts) Director National (ecurit$ (tu*ies at Council on ?oreign "elations) ?oreign Affairs) ,anuar$/?e1ruar$ 1698) . #&01 'M88A"1F%G. accesse* ,ul$ 1&) %&1%
Chemical wea ons ha!e 1een notice* more in the ast *eca*e) es eciall$ since the$ were use* 1$ Ara; against Aranian troo s in the 16G&0GG Aran0Ara; War an* against Eur*ish ci!ilians in 16GG. Chemicals are far more wi*el$ a!aila1le than nuclear wea ons 1ecause the technolog$ re;uire* to ro*uce them is far sim ler) an* large num1ers of countries ha!e un*ertaken chemical

chemical wea ons are not reall$ in the same class as other wea ons of mass *estruction) in the sense of a1ilit$ to inflict a huge num1er of ci!ilian casualties in a single strike. ?or the ten*s of thousan*s of fatalities as in) sa$ ) the 1iggest strategic 1om1ing rai*s of Worl* War AA) it woul* 1e !er$ *ifficult logisticall$ an* o erationall$ to *eli!er chemical wea ons in necessar$ ;uantities o!er large areas.
wea ons rograms. -ut

Connally Debate

Page 2 of 2 Huley Karamali

Neg Answers to: Chemical warfare T/Os H. C8EMACA: WEA@ON( A"E 7N:AEE:C TO EA:: MANC @EO@:E ,ohn an* Carl Mueller) @rofessor of @olitical (cience) 7ni!ersit$ of "ochester) an* @rofessor of Com arati!e Militar$ (tu*ies) 7( Air ?orce (chool of A*!ance* Air ower (tu*ies) ,O7"NA: O? (T"ATE9AC (T7DAE() March %&00) .1FI. 'M8(O:T%HHG. accesse* ,ul$ 1&) %&1% it woul* take a ton of ner!e gas or fi!e tons of mustar* gas to ro*uce hea!$ casualties among un rotecte* eo le in an o en area of one kilometer s;uare. E!en for ner!e gas this woul* take the concentrate* *eli!er$ into a rather small area of a1out #&& hea!$ artiller$ shells or se!en J&&0 oun* 1om1s)= an* this woul* ro1a1l$ re;uire a consi*era1le amount of time) allowing man$ eo le to) e!acuate the targete* area.= A 166# Anal$sis 1$ the Office of Technolog$
-iologist Matthew Meselsoh calculates that Assessment of the 7( Congress fin*s that a ton of (arin ner!e gas erfectl$ *eli!ere* un*er a1solutel$ i*eal con*itions o!er a hea!il$ o ulate* area against un rotecte* eo le coul* cause 1etween #)&&& an* G)&&& *eaths.

circumstances 00 it there was a mo*erate win* or if the sun was out) for e>am 1e onl$ one0tenth as great. Nuclear wea ons are consi*ere* wea ons of mass *estruction 1ecause a single 1om1 can

7n*er slightl$ less i*eal le 00 the *eath rate) woul*

generate great *e!astation. ?or chemical wea ons to cause e>tensi!e *amage) 1$ contrast) man$ of them must 1e use*) 2ust like con!entional ones.

J. :ow ro1a1ilit$0it is near im ossi1le for the erfect con*itions for effecti!e chemical warfare to e!er 1e achie!e* it woul* 1e ;uickl$ 1lown awa$ in the win* or e!a orate. F. ?EW O? T8O(E ED@O(ED TO C8EMACA: WEA@ON( ACT7A::C DAE
,ohn an* Carl

Mueller) @rofessor of @olitical (cience) 7ni!ersit$ of "ochester) an* @rofessor of Com

arati!e Militar$ (tu*ies) 7(

Air ?orce (chool of A*!ance* Air ower (tu*ies) ,O7"NA: O? (T"ATE9AC (T7DAE() March %& 00) .1FI0G. 'M8(O:T%HH6. accesse* ,ul$ 1&) %&1% Discussions of chemical wea ons often stress their a1ilit$ to cause casualties) 1oth *ea* an* woun*e*) glossing o!er the fact that historicall$ most of these inca acitate* 1$ chemical wea ons ha!e not <actuall$ *ie*. Cet clearl$) if the$ are to 1e classifie* as

An Worl* War A onl$ some % to # er cent of those gasse* on the Western ?ront *ie* while) 1$ contrast) woun*s cause* 1$ tra*itional wea ons were some 1& or 1% times more likel$ to ro!e fatal. Chemical wea ons were use* against su1stantiall$ un rotecte* Aranians 1$ Ara; in their 16G&0GG war) 1ut of the %I)&&& gasse* through March 16GI) Aran re orte* that onl$ %F% *ie*. (imilarl$) when Aum (hinrik$o a1an*one* its< 1iological efforts in frustration an*
<wea ons of mass *estruction<) the$ must *estro$) not sim l$ inca acitate. instea* release* <*ea*l$< (arin ner!e gas into a ,a anese su1wa$ in 166J) the attack cause* o!er a thousan* casualties) 1ut onl$ 1% *eaths. Moreo!er) troo

s woun*e* 1$ gas ten* to return to com1at more ;uickl$ than those woun*e* 1$ 1ullets or shra nel an* to suffer less. Against well0 rotecte* troo s) gas is almost wholl$ ineffecti!e
e>ce t as an incon!enience.

I. The worst chemical wea ons manage to *o is small num1er of casualties an* slight anic which 1oth can easil$ 1e *elt with.