C r i t i c a l I s s u e s F o r u m

School # 125 in Snezhinsk,Russia

Student-participant: Ivan Drokin;

Teacher-consultant: Larisa Zlokazova

To begin the work on Benchmark 1 the student was asked to investigate and comprehend the nature of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

In his investigations Vanya consulted with local law enforcement agency and examined the documents. He conducted interviews with a lawyer Anatoly Gorshkov; a local scientist and politician – the deputy of Chelyabinsk region Duma – Boris Murashkin; a lieutenant - colonel Sergei Zykov and a specialist of the Civil Defense Committee Nikolay Bezgin.

Then Vanya compared their definitions of WMD with the academic definition given in the Dictionary.

Besides, he had to monitor some textbooks, print, television and Internet news sources and created the final product of Benchmark 1.

For convenience Benchmark 1 is divided into 5 parts:

Part 1 Definitions of WMD:

· Academic definitions of weapons of mass destruction (WMD);

· Interviews conducted with local specialists.

Part 2 Nuclear weapons:

· The Timeline of historical discoveries of atom and atomic energy;

· How a nuclear weapon works;

· How nuclear weapons are constructed;

· Alpha, beta, gamma emitters and their effects on the human body;

· A historical example of the use of nuclear weapons and their overall effects.

Part 3 Biological Weapons:

· Biological weapons chart and their effects;

· How biological agents can be weaponized;

· A historical example of the use of biological weapons and their overall effect.

Part 4 Chemical Weapons:

· A chart of chemical weapons and their effects;

· How chemical agents can be weaponized;

· How chemical facilities can be of dual use;

· A historical example of the use of chemical weapons.

Part 5 Vocabulary. Abbreviation.

BENCHMARK 1

PART 1

Interviews.

1) With the former officer, now a specialist of Civil Defense Committee – Nikolay Bezgin.

Question:

Is there an exact definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)?

Answer:

No, there is no such a definition in the documents of the Army. Only lawyers or politicians can give you the definitions of WMD. There are definitions of nuclear weapons (NW), chemical weapons (CW) and biological weapons (BW).

To chemical weapons poison agents and means of their transporting or propelling (special missiles, shells, mines, bombs, chemical high-explosives, chemical hand-grenades, etc.) are ascribed.

Effects of CW are based on toxic properties of chemical compound…

It is used to cause casualties and also can be used to poison big areas, military equipment, machines and other objects on the enemy’s territory.

Biological (bacteriological) weapons (BW) are based on the use of microorganisms’ properties to cause mass people (and other living beings) diseases.

Nuclear weapons (NW) are weapons (for example, nuclear or hydrogen bomb), whose destructive property is nuclear charge (equipment, which contains gun-devices and reserve of nuclear energy). Its effects are:

- Percussion wave,

- Light wave radiation,

- Penetrating radiation,

- Nuclear, radioactive pollution.

Question:

Why are there people who want to use WMD?

Answer:

The main aspect is terror and deterrence. The primary target is regime, government. The instrumental target is people - bigger or smaller groups.

I must say that WMD is also referred back to those who use it.

2) With a lawyer Anatoly Gorshkov.

Question:

Is there a juristic definition of what weapons of mass destruction are?

Answer:

Yes, there is the definition of WMD. There are normative acts, RF President’s Decree (Edict) (November 30, 1995; 1203), the Criminal Code ( article 355).

The other very important document is the Federal Law 3 183 (July 18, 1999) “About the Export Control”. The definition of WMD is given in these documents.

It sounds like:

Weapons of mass destruction are nuclear, chemical, biological or other weapons of high function (effect), use of which causes mass casualties and/or destruction.

In the RF Code About Administrative Crimes and/or Law Breaking the following definition of WMD is given:

WMD are nuclear, chemical, bacteriological (biological) and toxic weapons.

Question:

Who can allow or forbid and/or ban a state to test, produce, acquire or distribute (proliferate) WMD?

Answer:

It is determined by the International Law, where nations, United Nations in their documents, Standards of International Law determine what countries and on what conditions can acquire, produce and/or keep WMD.

Question:

What juristic sanctions can be used to the regimes, which have acquired WMD against the world’s public will and opinion?

Answer:

On the whole, economic sanctions are used, that includes stopping deliveries of technologies, equipment, machines, raw materials and other industrial products to the state. There are also political and other measures and sanctions provided by the Law of Nations.

3) With a lieutenant-colonel Sergei Zykov.

Question:

How military organizations and just military men define WMD?

Answer:

In any country of the world, excepting military regimes, army is the instrument of the state. So, it is not right for the Army to give the definition of WMD. They take and use the definitions given by lawyers and politicians as a guiding principle. WMD are first of all weapons, which cause much casualties, destruction, and annihilation of enemy’s equipment. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are WMD.

Question:

Different military men and politicians give different characteristic features of WMD. Have military organizations changed the definition of WMD over the last 10 years?

Answer:

Thanks to the fact that we are having the policy of relaxation of international tension between the USA and Russia. Besides, political process in our country, fortunately, holds up elaboration of new weapons of mass destruction, for example, nuclear weapons. World leading power – states signed the Ban of nuclear weapons tests, which holds up the development of new kinds of WMD.

Question:

The most destructive are nuclear weapons.

The most cynical and indecent are biological weapons.

The most simple to acquire are chemical weapons.

What are the weapons of the future?

Answer:

As a military man, I think there is no future for weapons. Weapons don’t serve the future. It, just the other way, denies the future. The use of WMD doesn’t cause or bring construction of the future (life).

More over, leading powerful states (Russia, USA, GB, France, Israel) possessing nuclear warheads and other WMD are more worried by the problem HOW TO KEEP and TO MAINTAIN IN SAFE ORDER these weapons. The main task is non-proliferation. It is first of all dangerous for the country itself to possess WMD and great responsibility to keep it in safe.