The talk and rhetoric of the late 19th century should have prepared the countries involved in World War I for chemical warfare. However, that was not case (Smart, 1997). World War I clearly demonstrated the deadly and destructive nature of chemicals in modern warfare. Both alliances in the war experimented with novel forms of warfare, to include chemical weapons, and followed the lead of their advisory (Hay, 2000). It is little wonder this war is known as the ‘‘chemist’s war’’ (Fitzgerald, 2008). Initially, the French used gas grenades with little effect and were followed by the German use of shells filled with tear gas (Joy, 1997). The Germans, capitalizing on their robust chemical industry, produced shells filled with dianisidine chlorosulfate (Smart, 1997). These shells were used in October of 1914 against the British at Neuve-Chapelle but had little effect. In the winter of 1914–15, the Germans fired 150 mm howitzer shells filled with xylyl bromide (Smart, 1997). The xylyl bromide shells were fired on both the eastern and western fronts with disappointing effects. Despite the inauspicious start of chemical warfare on both fronts, efforts were continued to develop new uses. It would soon be evident that chemical warfare would be devastating on the battlefield (Coleman, 2005; Tucker, 2006). Fritz Haber, a German scientist who later won the Nobel prize in Chemistry, had proposed the possibility of releasing chlorine gas from cylinders (Joy, 1997). Chemical warfare was attractive to Germans for two reasons: the shortage of German artillery shells and the ability to defeat the enemy trench system (Smart, 1997). After consideration and debate, the Germans released chlorine in April 1915 at Ypres, Belgium (Coleman, 2005). The German military was not prepared for the tremendous operational advantage the chlorine release provided. It did not take long for the British and French forces to respond in kind to the German offensive (Vedder and Walton, 1925; Joy, 1997; Smart, 1997; Coleman, 2005). In the fall of 1915, a British officer, William Livens, introduced a modified mortar (Figure 2.1) that could project gas-filled shells of chlorine or phosgene, the two agents of choice at that time (Joy, 1997). Both chlorine and phosgene caused extreme respiratory problems to those soldiers who were exposed (Vedder and Walton, 1925; Joy, 1997; Smart, 1997; Coleman, 2005; Hurst et al., 2007) (Figure 2.2).
As the USA entered the war in the spring of 1917, an obvious concern of the military command was the effect of chemical warfare on standard operations. Chemistry departments at universities were tasked with investigating and developing novel chemical agents (Joy, 1997). Protective equipment (Figure 2.3) and basic studies of the biological effects of chemical agents were assigned to the US Army Medical Department (Joy, 1997). In the fall of 1917, the Army began to build an industrial base for producing
chemical agents at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland (Joy, 1997). As the effects of chlorine and phosgene became diminished by the advent of gas masks (Figure 2.4), the Germans turned to dichlorethyl sulfide (mustard) at Ypres against the British (Joy, 1997). As opposed to the gases, mustard remained persistent in the area and contact avoidance was the major concern (Joy, 1997). It is worth noting that almost 100 years after it was first used on the battlefield, mustard still has no effective treatment and research continues for effective therapeutics (Babin and Ricketts et al., 2000; Baskin and Prabhaharan, 2000; Casillas and Kiser, 2000; Hay, 2000; Schlager and Hart, 2000; Hurst et al., 2007; Romano et al., 2008). It has been estimated that there were over one million chemical casualties (Figure 2.5) of World War I with almost 8% being fatal (Joy, 1997). The Russians on the eastern front had a higher percentage of fatalities when compared with other countries in the war, primarily due to the later introduction of a protective mask (Joy, 1997). The relatively low mortality rate of chemical casualties in World War I demonstrated the most insidious aspect of their use, the medical and logistical burden it placed on the affected army. The eventual Allied victory brought a temporary end to chemical warfare. In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles prohibited the Germans from productio and use of chemical weapons.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar