Nonnuclear weapons

Chapter 2 covers threats and basic damage mechanisms associated with a wide variety of nonnuclear weapons and munitions. It also touches on terminal ballistics, but does not cover this extensive topic in detail... 

The act stipulates that it shall be the policy of the United States to cooperate with and provide technical assistance to nonnuclear weapon states in the field of spent fuel storage and disposal. 

In these circumstances, the incapacitating agents might be a usable discriminating force which, in support of other nonnuclear weapons, could make the attainment of battlefield objectives much simpler for the nation employing them. 

Nonnuclear weapons states such as Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and South Africa do not want to get shut out of an enrichment market that will grow if nuclear energy enjoys a renaissance. Other states resent being denied access to additional nuclear technologies when they feel that they have not benefited from nuclear cooperation as it is, and the nuclear weapons states have not delivered on the original disarmament bargain." ... 

At the beginning of the seventies, the first useable FAE were developed at the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Centre Weapons Division NAWCWPNS, California. They are considered as the strongest nonnuclear chemical explosives. Primarily ethylene oxide (EO) or propylene oxide (PO) serve as fuels. These substances are atomised by explosive charges and ignited after mixing up with air. After intra-moleculare decomposition the fuel reacts with atmospheric oxygen and starts a detonation with velocities about 2000 m/s. Peak pressure under the detonating cloud reaches up to 30 bar. The effectiveness of the blast wave exceeds TNT more than five times calculated for equivalent masses. 

A second type of chemical weapon is rather new but has already attracted considerable military interest throughout the world—the large-scale use on the battlefield of chemicals which are not basically lethal in themselves but which produce a temporary and reversible incapacitation—for example, temporary mental confusion, temporary anesthesia, narcosis, paralysis, temporary blindness. Such chemicals used in conjunction with other nonnuclear arms could contribute to the success of a military operation, with a significant reduction in loss of life—particularly in comparison to the casualties associated with nuclear use. A situation where nonlethal weapons might be of considerable significance is found in so-called limited wars, or less than total wars, where military operations are limited in scale, area, participants, and degree of violence. In such wars it is desirable to stamp out aggression at the earliest possible moment and with minimum loss of life and property. 

The fact remains, however, that the Biopreparat network stood ready to begin full production when told, at a time in the future designated as Day X. The Soviet Defense Ministry built these biological weapons, known as Weapons of Special Designation, into their military planning. They were to be used not only as a last resort but also as support weapons in a conventional (nonnuclear) conflict, to attack the enemy s troop reserves and hamper his operations at ports and rail centers.11... 

Although the data base is limited, several nuclear-related incidents involving public response have occurred and can be compared to the nonnuclear experience. Some of these incidents (excluding weapons-related incidents) are presented in Table 5.4-6. The Environmental Protection Agency found no reason to expect that people will react differently to a nuclear accident than they would to a flood, fire, or similar emergency. ... 

---