Addressing Chemical Weapons

Despite an increasing public awareness of the escalating dangers of chemical weapons, consensus at the Washington Conference was difficult to establish. All sides agreed that a general prohibition was unrealistic for three main reasons. First, since many conventional weapons and explosives emit noxious gasses any outright ban on chemicals would potentially cause confusion and debate among international military authorities. Second, comprehensive supervision and regulation of chemical research and development was impossible. Third, those nations who honestly obeyed a chemical weapons ban would be at a major disadvantage against unscrupulous states that ignored the treaty. In fact, opposition to the regulation of chemical warfare was so strong that most members of the Washington Conference agreed that chemical weapons were no more or less dangerous than conventional weapons. Once again, despite the international will to ban gas warfare, abolition was stalled by national governments who saw little hope in regulating chemicals.

Objections to regulation of gas warfare stemmed mainly from the perceived difficulty in enforcement and the fear of unscrupulous nations violating any treaty. Because of this, conference members agreed that although chemical weapons were universally condemned by the civilized world, there could be no limitation on chemical warfare between warring combatants.