Melhem 1

Omar Melhem
Mrs. McMennamy
Academy Capstone- 1
17 September 2017
Chemistrys Influence on War
All disciplines in science are linked in one way or another. While chemistry is the focus

of this paper (as well as the papers to follow), chemistry itself is not entirely isolatable from

other studies such as biology, physics, geology, and so on. This holds true for all subtopics of

science. For example, would studying the stars of the universe be exclusive to astronomy? Of

course not. A physicist could study the color theory behind a stars light, or the forces of gravity

associated with something so massive and dense. A chemist could study the nuclear reactions

that are responsible for releasing tremendous amounts of energy. A biologist could observe the

processes and functions of life that use this energy. When I speak of chemistry, I inevitably

include countless other subtopics of science as a whole. I will cover history of medicine, which is

also deeply rooted in biology. I will discuss metallurgy, which also includes ideas based in

physics and geology. I am not claiming that chemistry is an invalid branch of science. Chemistry

is still chemistry (the study of the properties of matter), except it is inevitably intertwined with

other branches of science. I could never limit myself to only studying chemistry, because it is

impossible to describe anything as exclusive to one branch of science alone. All this being said,

this paper will discuss chemistrys role in war history.

The evolution of weaponry played a significant role in war, changing how battles were

fought, and even altering the philosophy behind military conflict. Robert E. Krebs does an

excellent job of classifying weaponry in his book, Groundbreaking Scientific Experiments,

Inventions, and Discoveries of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. He divides them into three

categories: handheld weapons, conventional weapons, and non-conventional weapons. Handheld

 Melhem 2

weapons involve three types of weapons. The first is simple shock weapons (rocks, clubs, and

later swords and axes, as a result of improved metallurgy). The second is muscle-powered

projectiles, such as spears, bows, or slingshots. The third type of handheld weapon is

mechanically powered projectiles, including those of the trebuchet, catapult, or the crossbow, all

significant works of physics. Moving on, conventional weapons are those that use rapidly

expanding gases released by chemical reactions to propel projectiles, such as muskets, cannons,

or pistols. The final category, non-conventional weapons, is split into two groups: weapons

involving nuclear fission (atomic bombs) or fusion (hydrogen bombs), and weapons based on

harmful chemicals, but that do not depend on explosive reactions. These could either include

gases (sarin nerve gas, mustard and phosgene gases, etc.) or biological weapons that cause severe

illness such as anthrax, plague, or smallpox (Krebs, 2004). What Krebs mentions about the effect

that these categories of weapons had on history is how the reintroduction and rise of

conventional weapons transformed the art of war. Gunpowder, as well as improved handheld

conventional weapons, made war much more distant and less personal, and in the process

diminished the importance of personal armor. Chain mail armor could only provide adequate

protection against slashing swords, and the use of gunpowder in firearms was increasing rapidly.

Large, weighted armor could protect from bullets or grenades, but only at the expense of the

mobility of those wearing it, and additionally severely damaging the armor. Mobility was crucial

because the distant nature of gun warfare required frequent movement to dodge enemy fire and

get into strategic positions. Therefore, armor, once being a tremendous artifact of war, became

obsolete because war became less about being able to take a hit and more about getting out of the

way.
 Melhem 3

Yet another chemical advancement that transformed war was the development and

experimentation of poisonous gas, a non-conventional weapon, most notably in World War I.

John Edwin Coe, an expert on the topic, describes the key difference between poison gases and

other non-conventional weapons, nuclear and biological weapons. While nuclear and biological

weapons are designed for widespread, often uncontrolled damage, Coe points out that the effect

[of poisonous gas] must continue to be local; that no war gases have been discovered that can

wipe out whole cities; that they would be relatively in- effective against a population which is

properly prepared and trained; and that they are expensive to produce (Coe, 1942). Coe also

provides a classification of poison gas. While poisonous gases can be gaseous, solid, or liquid,

and may linger for varied amounts of time, he says that the easiest way to classify them is by the

part of the body that the gas affects: blister gases, lung injuriants, paralysants or nerve destroyers,

tear gases, and sneezing gases (although some gases can have more than one of these properties).

The lingering property of gas is what makes it so different from, say, an explosive, which also

could affect multiple people in an area. Running through the site of a recent grenade explosion

would not be harmful because the effect is over, but running into an already deployed cloud of

gas is. Alden H. Waitt, the author on a work of the effectiveness of poison gas, describes this

property as being continuous in time and space (Waitt, 1935). For this reason, war gases can

be used as more aggressive barricades to prevent enemy transport of supplies by making entire

areas impassable. Waitt also places value in their ability to shoot around corners, severely

limiting the effectiveness of walls or trenches, and in turn, altering military strategy.

The Cold War, a period of political and military tensions between the U.S. and the

U.S.S.R., differed from conflicts in the past because of one distinct characteristic: nuclear

bombs. The U.S. had used atomic bombs on Japan prior to their surrender in World War II. Now,
 Melhem 4

the Soviet Union had an arsenal as well, and they and the U.S. were stuck on the brink of nuclear

war until the fall of the Soviet Union around 1990. This is an example of warfare revolutionized

by the innovation of chemistry in war. Atomic and hydrogen bombs work by methods of fission

and fusion respectively. Fission is the splitting into two similarly sized parts of atomic nuclei,

while fusion is the combination. Both processes result in massive chain reactions capable of

destroying areas as large as entire cities. The blast is only half of what makes a nuclear bomb

destructive, because such an explosion also leaves everything in the vicinity radioactive. In the

case of an air burst, most of the radioactive products would be gaseous, or completely

vaporized, and would rise with the fireball and come down slowly as nuclear fallout (Phillips,

2004). The result is long-lasting damage that lingers longer than any poison gas ever could,

because a large fraction (a minimum of one-third) of the original fissile material (plutonium or

U-235) does not get destroyed (Phillips, 2004). Instead, those lucky enough to survive the blast

are at a greater risk of developing cancer or other complications later in life. Nothing seen before

in history has been capable of causing so much damage, nor haunting people or areas that were

affected for many decades.

 Melhem 5

Works Cited

John Edwin Coe. (1942). Chemical Warfare. The American Biology Teacher, 4(7), 219-221.

Krebs, R. E. (2004). Groundbreaking scientific experiments, inventions, and discoveries of the Middle

Ages and the Renaissance. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Phillips, A. (2004). THE EFFECTS OF A NUCLEAR BOMB EXPLOSION ON A CITY. Peace

Research, 36(2), 93-101.

Waitt, A. (1935). No Super War Gas! Scientific American, 153(6), 293-297.