Running head: Chemical Warfare 1

Chemical Warfare Against the Human Race

Eric Breuer

University of Texas at El Paso

Friday, February 23, 2018

Chemical Warfare 2

Introduction

The use of chemical weapons and warfare is internationally rejected. Due to that, twenty

years ago, the chemical weapons convention came into force. This agreement has been ratified

by almost all the states of the globe. Despite this important agreement, the banned substances,

chemical weapons, are still used today. These chemical weapons are usually artificially produced

toxins. Chemical weapons could be used as weapons of mass destruction. If these weapons are

used, this could lead to countless dead and wounded. The first "real" chemical weapons were

developed and used during the first World War. But also, in World War II, Vietnam War and the

first Gulf War chemical weapons were used. Despite the terrible experiences of the first world

war involving the use of chemical weapons, there has been a constant effort to modernize

chemical weapons and keep them for deterrence.

The two types of genres which are used in this genre analysis paper go into the depth of

the reasons behind the use in general and the danger that these deadly weapons represent. One of

the genres used is named “The Secret History of Chemical Warfare”. This type of genre is an

eBook which was written in the year of 2006, by the author called McCamley, N. J.. It offers a

full diagnosis and description about all chemical agents, manufactured, tested, and or used since

the beginning of the first world war.

The second genre used for this paper is the journal article “Chemical Warfare” published

by “Council on Foreign Relations”. It was written by James E. Mills in April 1932. This journal

article states information about the political circumstances and precautions made by these

politicians, so that it does not come to the use of such weapons. In addition, the chemical

weapons are generally reported and their damage to the population. Besides that, the author also
Chemical Warfare 3

expressed the amount of money that has to be spent to prevent such an outbreak or as a defensive

expenditure.

Audience and Purpose

The journal article, “Chemical Warfare”, represents one of the chosen sources in this

paper. This journal article was and is intended for the majority of a general audience based on

their way to write and approach the people within the source itself. The purpose of the author

that wrote this secondary source was to inform the audience and provide awareness in form of

general information on the topic of chemical warfare, which is quite different when compared

with the second secondary source included in this paper.

This second source “The Secret History of Chemical Warfare”, ties in with people that

are fascinated with this topic, it helps to understand single and small details that are connected to

chemical weapons or warfare if recalled. The online e-book provides information and is written

for a higher educated audience that is willing to gather information and learn more necessary

information related to this topic. The book is meant to give general awareness and to let people

interact in a deeper way into the subject matter. It acts as an enlightenment for the targeted

audience.

Logos

Despite the differences of both genres of sources (E-Book, Article), both sources talk

about the effectiveness of chemical warfare and that chemical warfare is unpredictable. Both

sources mentioned, that the production of, for example, mustard gas is relatively easy and cheap.

In comparison to that, these chemical weapons are very effective against the enemy. James E.

Mills stated in his article “Chemical warfare" that is published in the magazine "Foreign Affairs”

in 1932, that the required raw materials to produce mustard gas were plentiful. Mills mentioned,
Chemical Warfare 4

that the use of 12,000 tons of the chemical warfare agent mustard gas was responsible for

350,000 gas victims during the First World War. 2.5 % of these victims died (Mills, J. E, p. 445).

N.J. McCamley stated in his Book "The secret of chemical warfare" from 2006 that, although

mustard gas was used almost by the end of the First World War, it was responsible for the

majority of gas casualties during the War. McCamley mentioned an assault from German troops

in July 1917, that lasted ten days. During this assault, around 1,000,000 artillery rounds were

fired. These artillery rounds contained 2,500 tons of mustard gas. This one assault caused more

gas victims than the entire use of gas shells in the previous year (McCamley, N. J, Chapter 1).

Both sources also mentioned the need for regulations on the use of chemical weapons.

Here, the views of both authors differed. N.J. McCamley described in his book the expiration of

the Washington Naval Conference of 1922. There, the American delegation, on the express

instruction of US President Harding, made the suggestion that the civilized world condemns the

use of chemical weapons in wars. This proposal was adopted in the contract between the US, the

British Empire, France, Italy and Japan and all parties signed this agreement on February 6, 1922

(McCamley, N. J, Chapter 3). Mills argued in his article the opposite opinion that, if the use of

Chemical Weapons would be condemned, the defending nation would be the heaviest sufferer,

since this nation could not use chemical weapons for defense. Mills concludes this argument

with the sentence: "No treaty should forbid a nation to protect its territory with the use of any

weapon" (Mills, J.E, p. 447-448).

Ethos

Both authors used different arguments to support their credibility. James E. Mills was

credible because of his work experience. He served as a chemist at the Chemical Warfare Service

during the First World War and was later deployed in the 1st Gas Regiment. Because of these
Chemical Warfare 5

activities, the statistics and figures he mentions are credible. He mentioned that all nations

involved in the World War needed relatively few troops to use chemical weapons. 17,150

soldiers deployed 60 million gas shots (page 445). As a chemist, he was credible in conveying

the composition and effect of chemical weapons (page 445). N.J. McCamley also based his

credibility on statistics. As the author of numerous books about both world wars and the time

during the cold war (for example Secret Biological Warfare, Cold War Secret Nuclear Bunkers),

he had access to sources that were verifiable for the audience and proved his credibility. Based

on statistics, he showed the effectiveness of even minimal countermeasures. If 30 percent of the

soldiers exposed to gas died at the beginning of the First World War, the number of deaths

during the war was sharply reduced by the use of countermeasures. Nonetheless, he referred to

the high toxicity of chemical weapons under favorable conditions and the dangers of taking no

precautions (Chapter 1).

Pathos

In addition to statistics and facts, James E. Mills and McCamley also appealed to the

emotional level of the audience. McCamley portrayed the effects of gas attacks in his book,

using brash language. He described how the use of chemical weapons was perceived by the

public. The public at that time spoke of men who were tortured by thousands of chemical

weapons, that the soldiers were ravaged by an invisible hand. McCamley mentioned a report

from the London Times, which reported in an article about men who were shaking with open

mouths, gasping for breath, and having leaded eyes Chapter 1). He also described the opinion

held in England that a single bomb filled with gas and dumped at Piccadilly Circus in central

London would kill every man, woman and child in London from Regents Park to the River

Thames (Chapter 3). James E. Mills spoke in his article about the unjust demonization of
Chemical Warfare 6

chemical warfare. He said that gas was the most human weapon, because ultimately 24 percent

of American war victims affected by conventional weapons would die, but only 2 percent of the

victims of gas weapons would die. Only 3.3 percent of gas victims die in the British Army (page

446). Mills also argued that statements about relative inhumanity that chemical warfare inflicts

injustice on gas weapons compared to conventional weapons, since the use of chemical weapons

can be humanized by dosing and not the use of conventional weapons (pages 446 - 447).

Conclusion

Although both authors had different personal and professional backgrounds, both

illuminate the topic of chemical warfare in a similar way. Both James E. Mills and N.J.

McCamley initially introduced the various chemical warfare agents and then explained the

history of chemical warfare. As origin, both had defined the first world war, in which first the

German troops began to use chemical weapons. It was noteworthy that both Mills and

McCamley repeatedly pointed out how easy and relatively inexpensive chemical weapons were

to produce. Both of them even proved that the raw materials for the production of chemical

warfare agents already existed, since they were produced as by-products of the chemical industry

and thus only had to be incorporated into projectiles. Both authors pointed to the serious health

effects caused by chemical warfare agents, but both also noted that the death toll from chemical

warfare operations was much lower than that used in conventional ordnance operations. The

proof of both authors with the help of statistics was conclusive, and comprehensible to the

audience. Differences in the explanations of both authors only emerge when it came to how the

world and thus the general public should deal with the problems and effects of chemical warfare.

Only N.J. McCamley described the public's opinion in his book "The Secret History of Chemical

Warfare" by describing the physical damage caused by gas attacks. He showed the suffering of
Chemical Warfare 7

the soldiers and he pictured to the audience how the bodies of the soldiers changed. McCamley

also described the fear of the press, which pointed to the dangers of chemical weapons. James E.

Mills in his article "Chemical Warfare" in no way mentioned the opinion of the public. Mills

even went so far as to emphasize on several occasions the humanity of chemical warfare over

"normal" warfare. He argued that no nation should be forced to renounce the use of chemical

warfare agents. It is quite normal and certainly understandable that the two authors had a

different opinion concerning chemical weapons and their use. But one of the authors is a

proponent of chemical warfare, who has witnessed the use of chemical weapons in real, is

surprising. James E. Mills wrote his article in 1932. The effects of World War I were still

palpable, and the world was in a great crisis, but Mills still believed that chemical weapons were

more humane than conventional weapons. One thing both authors had in common again. Neither

James E. Mills nor N.J. McCamley questioned the wars themselves, they did not question the use

of weapons in general. They compared only two different weapons, the chemical and the

conventional. Both weapons are deadly.

Chemical Warfare 8

References

McCamley, N. J. (2006). The secret history of chemical warfare. Barnsley: Pen and
Sword.

Mills, J. E. (1932). Chemical warfare. Foreign Affairs, 10(3), 444-452.