The Future Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction An Update

In 2014, the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction at National Defense University published a paper on the future of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).1 It projected WMD-relevant geopolitical and technological trends and made judgments as to how those trends would shape the nature and role of WMD in 2030. Significant geopolitical and technological developments bearing on the future of WMD have emerged since the 2014 paper or were largely not addressed in that study. This paper addresses six baskets of such developments. They include 1) the shifting roles of the great powers; 2) new pressures on arms control and nonproliferation regimes; 3) more roles for chemical and biological weapons; 4) expanding use of financial sanctions as an instrument of nonproliferation and other policies; 5) new types of delivery vehicles and more scope to develop and deploy them; and 6) other emerging and disruptive technologies with WMD relevance including artificial intelligence, biotechnology, quantum systems, and additive manufacturing. This paper was finalized in early November 2020 so does not address later events like the 2020 U.S. presidential election result.

This unique book is a compendium of eight outstanding reports from the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD Center). The reports include: Part 1: Defining "Weapons of Mass Destruction" * Part 2: Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction: Looking Back, Looking Ahead * Part 3: International Partnerships to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction * Part 4: Can al Qaeda Be Deterred from Using Nuclear Weapons? * Part 5: Eliminating Adversary Weapons of Mass Destruction: What's at Stake? * Part 6: Iraq and After: Taking the Right Lessons for Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction * Part 7: The Future Nuclear Landscape * Part 8: The Future of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Their Nature and Role in 2030 The phrase "weapons of mass destruction, "for example, is an amorphous one, changing meaning according to the whims of the speaker. Raising the specter of WMD is more a way by which politicians assign blame or take a stand on seemingly objective moral standards than a way by which they assess a particular weapons system. Because many analysts find fault with existing definitions, they offer new definitions that differ in some radical way from those commonly accepted.8 Still others, believing that the traditional definitions for WMD are intellectually problematic, propose dropping the term altogether. Recognizing these disagreements, the 2004 British government review of Iraq WMD intelligence offered the following comment: There is a considerable and long-standing academic debate about the proper interpretation of the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." We have some sympathy with the view that, whatever its origin, the phrase and its accompanying abbreviation is now used so variously as to confuse rather than enlighten readers. In important ways, the world is at a nuclear crossroads. The complex and dynamic nuclear landscape presents us with challenges along at least four axes: regional nuclear proliferation, nuclear terrorism, great power nuclear relations, and the security implications of increased interest in nuclear energy. These problems are interrelated in ways that the national security community does not fully understand. Strategy and policy frameworks do not address them in sufficiently integrated fashion. New conceptual thinking is required to develop a more unified understanding of and approach to managing the risks and opportunities posed by these 21st-century nuclear challenges. Today, more than at any other time in the nuclear era, nuclear capacity and potential (knowledge, technology, and materials) are accessible to a growing number of actors with more ambitious goals. The result is a high degree of nuclear latency that challenges traditional thinking about nuclear threats. Whereas 30 or 40 years ago, only a handful of countries were assumed to know how to acquire nuclear weapons, as many as 35 or 40 nations currently are believed to be in the know, and many more could become so based on their participation in civilian nuclear energy programs.

The spread of weapons of mass destruction poses one of the greatest threats to international peace and security in modern times--the specter of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons looms over relations among many countries. The September 11 tragedy and other terrorist attacks have been painful warnings about gaps in nonproliferation policies and regimes, specifically with regard to nonstate actors. In this volume, experts in nonproliferation studies examine challenges faced by the international community and propose directions for national and international policy making and lawmaking. The first group of essays outlines the primary threats posed by WMD proliferation and terrorism. Essays in the second section analyze existing treaties and other normative regimes, including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Chemical Weapons and Biological Weapons Conventions, and recommend ways to address the challenges to their effectiveness. Essays in part three examine the shift some states have made away from nonproliferation treaties and regimes toward more forceful and proactive policies of counterproliferation, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative, which coordinates efforts to search and seize suspect shipments of WMD-related materials.

The Secretary-General announced on 24 May 2018 his Agenda for Disarmament, which outlines a set of practical measures across the entire range of disarmament issues, including weapons of mass destruction, conventional arms and future weapon technologies. It seeks to generate fresh perspectives and to explore areas where serious dialogue is required to bring disarmament back to the heart of our common efforts for peace and security.

These papers from a meeting on terrorism in Cork in 1999 include: the effects of changing geo-politics on terrorism; strategic and tactical responses to innovations in terrorism; the changing nature of terrorism; the threat of weapons of mass destruction; and single-issue terrorism.