This topic made me go back and read a paper I wrote in college a few years ago on the use of herbicides in Vietnam. We've been in this business a LONG time:
"During the 1920's the United States took the lead in promoting international prohibitions of chemical and biological warfare. One effort, the 1922 Treaty of Washington outlawing ‘the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases’ was ratified by the U.S. Senate but rejected by France because of provisions, unrelated to chemical warfare, that placed strict limitations on submarines. The treaty never went into effect. In 1925 the United States tried again with the Geneva Protocol, which repeated the earlier ban on chemical weapons and added a prohibition of ‘bacteriological warfare.’ It was sent to the Senate in January 1926, where it met a returning wave of isolationism and a wall of opposition led by the American Legion and the American Chemical Society.”
"The first use of gas in World War I was not the German attack with chlorine in 1915 but a French attack in 1914-with tear gas."
In 1969-1970, "India, Mexico, Pakistan, Sweden and 17 other nations proposed in the General Assembly a resolution holding that the Geneva Protocol prohibits the use in war of all chemical agents directed at men, animals or plants. The resolution was passed by a vote of 80 to three, with 36 abstentions. Portugal, Australia and the U.S. voted against the resolution.”
"The U.S. Army manual The Law of Land Warfare, last issued in the 1950's, states that the Geneva Protocol is ‘not binding on this country’.”
I have 17 pages of research on this topic and it's all very disturbing to see how everything progressed. First, we used plant-growth regulators in the 1930's and 1940's to do positive things like increase the growth-rate for tomatoes by 300x. It only took a few years before we were using the same concept, but in reverse, to destroy plants. Fort Detrick was the main source for this research. Of course, the consequences were deadly to plants, animals, and humans alike. Lord help us.
Bazell, Robert J. “CBW Ban: Nixon Would Exclude Tear Gas and Herbicides”, Science, New Series, Vol. 172, No. 3980 (1971): 246-248. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1731029.
Bennett, Ivan L. “The Significance of Chemical and Biological Warfare for the People”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 65, No. 1 (1970): 271-279. https://www.jstor.org/stable/59759.
Boffey, Philip M. Herbicides in Vietnam: AAAS Study Finds Widespread Devastation, Science, New Series, Vol. 171, No. 3966 (1971): 43-47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1731077.
Carlson, Elof Axel. “Commentary: International Symposium on Herbicides in the Vietnam War: An Appraisal”, Bioscience, Vol. 33, No. 8 (1983): 507-512. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1309140.
“Chemical and Biological Warfare”, Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 23, No. 4 (1970): 2-14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3823128.
Koppes, Clayton R. “Review: Agent Orange and the Official History of Vietnam”, Reviews in American History, Vol. 13, No. 1 (1985): 131-135. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2702023.
Langer, Elinor. “Chemical and Biological Warfare (I): The Research Program”, Science, New Series, Vol. 155, No. 3759 (1967): 174-179. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1721126.
Langer, Elinor. “Chemical and Biological Warfare (II): The Weapons and the Policies”, Science, New Series, Vol. 155, No. 3760 (1967): 299-303. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1720654.
Massey, Rachel. “The ‘Drug War’ in Colombia: Echoes of Vietnam”, Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 22, No. 3 (2001): 280-285. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3343142.
McClintock, Cynthia. “The War on Drugs: The Peruvian Case”, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 2/3 (1988): 127-142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/165983.
Peterson, Gale E. “The Discovery and Development of 2,4-D”, Agricultural History, Vol. 41, No. 3 (1967): 243-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3740338.
Rasmussen, Nicolas. “Plant Hormones in War and Peace: Science, Industry, and Government in the Development of Herbicides in 1940s America”, Isis, Vol. 92, No. 2 (2001): 291-316. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3080630.
Schmitz, David F. and Natalie Fousekis. “Frank Church, the Senate, and the Emergence of Dissent on the Vietnam War”, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 63, No. 4 (1994): 561-581. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3639949.
Shapley, Deborah. “Herbicides: Agent Orange Stockpile May Go to the South Americans”, Science, New Series, Vol. 180, No. 4081 (1973): 43-45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1735291.
Sodhy, Pamela. “The Malaysian Connection in the Vietnam War”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1987): 38-53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25797931.
Stanford Biology Study Group, “The Destruction of Indochina”, Instant Research on Peace and Violence, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1972): 2-8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40724622.
Tran-Duc-Thao. “Vietnam and Eastern Asia”, The Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4, French Indochina (1947): 409-413. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2049436.
Westing, Arthur H. “Ecological Effects of Military Defoliation on the Forests of South Vietnam”, BioScience, Vol. 21, No. 17 (1971): 893-898. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1295667.
This topic made me go back and read a paper I wrote in college a few years ago on the use of herbicides in Vietnam. We've been in this business a LONG time:
"During the 1920's the United States took the lead in promoting international prohibitions of chemical and biological warfare. One effort, the 1922 Treaty of Washington outlawing ‘the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases’ was ratified by the U.S. Senate but rejected by France because of provisions, unrelated to chemical warfare, that placed strict limitations on submarines. The treaty never went into effect. In 1925 the United States tried again with the Geneva Protocol, which repeated the earlier ban on chemical weapons and added a prohibition of ‘bacteriological warfare.’ It was sent to the Senate in January 1926, where it met a returning wave of isolationism and a wall of opposition led by the American Legion and the American Chemical Society.”
"The first use of gas in World War I was not the German attack with chlorine in 1915 but a French attack in 1914-with tear gas."
In 1969-1970, "India, Mexico, Pakistan, Sweden and 17 other nations proposed in the General Assembly a resolution holding that the Geneva Protocol prohibits the use in war of all chemical agents directed at men, animals or plants. The resolution was passed by a vote of 80 to three, with 36 abstentions. Portugal, Australia and the U.S. voted against the resolution.”
"The U.S. Army manual The Law of Land Warfare, last issued in the 1950's, states that the Geneva Protocol is ‘not binding on this country’.”
I have 17 pages of research on this topic and it's all very disturbing to see how everything progressed. First, we used plant-growth regulators in the 1930's and 1940's to do positive things like increase the growth-rate for tomatoes by 300x. It only took a few years before we were using the same concept, but in reverse, to destroy plants. Fort Detrick was the main source for this research. Of course, the consequences were deadly to plants, animals, and humans alike. Lord help us.
wow. would love to study this further if you have an good source materials to point me to. tia
Here are all the sources I used for my paper:
Bazell, Robert J. “CBW Ban: Nixon Would Exclude Tear Gas and Herbicides”, Science, New Series, Vol. 172, No. 3980 (1971): 246-248. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1731029.
Bender, Gerald. “Correspondence”, Africa Today, Vol. 18, No. 3, China and Africa (1971): 106-107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4185185.
Bennett, Ivan L. “The Significance of Chemical and Biological Warfare for the People”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 65, No. 1 (1970): 271-279. https://www.jstor.org/stable/59759.
Boffey, Philip M. Herbicides in Vietnam: AAAS Study Finds Widespread Devastation, Science, New Series, Vol. 171, No. 3966 (1971): 43-47. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1731077.
Carlson, Elof Axel. “Commentary: International Symposium on Herbicides in the Vietnam War: An Appraisal”, Bioscience, Vol. 33, No. 8 (1983): 507-512. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1309140.
“Chemical and Biological Warfare”, Bulletin of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. 23, No. 4 (1970): 2-14. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3823128.
Davis, Donald E. “Herbicides in Peace and War”, BioScience, Vol. 29, No. 2 (1979): 84+91-94. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1307743.
Huynh Kim Khanh. “Year One of Postcolonial Vietnam”, Southeast Asian Affairs (1977): 287-305. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27908323.
Johnstone, L. Craig. “Ecocide and the Geneva Protocol”, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 49, No. 4 (1971): 711-720. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20037875.
Koppes, Clayton R. “Review: Agent Orange and the Official History of Vietnam”, Reviews in American History, Vol. 13, No. 1 (1985): 131-135. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2702023.
Langer, Elinor. “Chemical and Biological Warfare (I): The Research Program”, Science, New Series, Vol. 155, No. 3759 (1967): 174-179. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1721126.
Langer, Elinor. “Chemical and Biological Warfare (II): The Weapons and the Policies”, Science, New Series, Vol. 155, No. 3760 (1967): 299-303. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1720654.
Massey, Rachel. “The ‘Drug War’ in Colombia: Echoes of Vietnam”, Journal of Public Health Policy, Vol. 22, No. 3 (2001): 280-285. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3343142.
McClintock, Cynthia. “The War on Drugs: The Peruvian Case”, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 30, No. 2/3 (1988): 127-142. https://www.jstor.org/stable/165983.
Meselson, Matthew S. “Chemical and Biological Weapons”, Scientific American, Vol. 222, No. 5 (1970): 15-25. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/24925799.
Mody, Navroz. “Chemical Warfare in Vietnam”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 5, No. 24 (1970): 948-949. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4360110.
Ng Shui Meng. “Vietnam in Perspective”, Southeast Asian Affairs (1975): 201-211. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27908257.
Norman, A.G. “Studies on Plant Growth-Regulating Substances”, Botanical Gazette, Vol. 107, No. 4 (1946): 475. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2472679.
Norman, Colin. “Vietnam’s Herbicide Legacy”, Science, New Series, Vol. 219, No. 4589 (1983): 1196-1197. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1690665.
Peterson, Gale E. “The Discovery and Development of 2,4-D”, Agricultural History, Vol. 41, No. 3 (1967): 243-254. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3740338.
Rasmussen, Nicolas. “Plant Hormones in War and Peace: Science, Industry, and Government in the Development of Herbicides in 1940s America”, Isis, Vol. 92, No. 2 (2001): 291-316. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3080630.
Schmitz, David F. and Natalie Fousekis. “Frank Church, the Senate, and the Emergence of Dissent on the Vietnam War”, Pacific Historical Review, Vol. 63, No. 4 (1994): 561-581. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3639949.
Shapley, Deborah. “Herbicides: Agent Orange Stockpile May Go to the South Americans”, Science, New Series, Vol. 180, No. 4081 (1973): 43-45. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1735291.
Sodhy, Pamela. “The Malaysian Connection in the Vietnam War”, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Vol. 9, No. 1 (1987): 38-53. https://www.jstor.org/stable/25797931.
Stanford Biology Study Group, “The Destruction of Indochina”, Instant Research on Peace and Violence, Vol. 2, No. 1 (1972): 2-8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40724622.
Stone, Richard. “Agent Orange’s Bitter Harvest”, Science, New Series, Vol. 315, No. 5809 (2007): 176-179. https://www.jstor.org/stable/20035179.
Tschirley, Fred H. “Defoliation in Vietnam”, Science, New Series, Vol. 163, No. 3869 (1969): 779-786. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1726473.
Tran-Duc-Thao. “Vietnam and Eastern Asia”, The Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 6, No. 4, French Indochina (1947): 409-413. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2049436.
Westing, Arthur H. “Ecological Effects of Military Defoliation on the Forests of South Vietnam”, BioScience, Vol. 21, No. 17 (1971): 893-898. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1295667.