A Disputation on the Strategy of Countering WMD

Disputation on the Strategy of Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction, January 2012, unpublished.

This document was recently found nailed to the doors of the famous Lincoln Church, which holds the Canon of Scriptures on Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD). It is a critique of the U.S. government's strategy for countering WMD, with a particular focus on the failure to distinguish strategies to counter the threat of adversarial nations employing nuclear, biological, and chemical (NBC) weapons from the threat of sub-state actors (notably, transnational terrorist groups) who might use chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) hazards or explosive weapons against non-combatants. In particular, it decries the efforts of a 'WMD priesthood' and its efforts to develop unique and stand-alone counter-WMD concepts, rather than integrating its efforts within existing security strategies, concepts, and plans.

"BIOCRISIS: Defining Biological Threats in U.S. Policy"
Over the last 20 years, the national security community has engaged with disease-related issues that have traditionally been the scope of public health agencies. The federal government's response has been to create a single national biodefense strategy, which has been largely ineffective in improving conditions due to poor terminology, a lack of leadership, and a failure to assess government programs.

Applying a public policy framework, Albert J. Mauroni examines how the government addresses biological threats―including disease prevention, bioterrorism response, military biodefense, biosurety, and agricultural biosecurity and food safety. He proposes a new approach to countering biological threats, arguing that lead agencies should focus on implementing discrete portfolios with annual assessments against clear and achievable objectives.

Envisioning a New Strategy to Counter Great Power Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction

This monograph dated January 2022 describes the need to develop a new national strategy for countering WMD, In particular, we suggest that:

1. New strategic guidance must offer a new construct on how the U.S. government prioritizes WMD threat sources and articulates ways and means for aligning whole-of-government resources, starting with a new National Strategy for Countering WMD that outlines how to address great power competition through deterrence, diplomacy, and defense operations.

2. New national strategic guidance must abandon the actoragnostic view of the current national/DOD strategies so as to adequately address Chinese/Russian WMD challenges, as well as acknowledge the differences between peer/near-peer and lesser states, as well as violent extremist organizations.

3. A more engaged National Security Council staff must oversee strategies developed by executive agencies, in particular, DOD, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of Health and Human Services, and the intelligence community.

Published Articles: 2021-2025

"The Strategic Posture Commission's Amazing Trip Back to the Future," War On the Rocks, December 2023

"The Biodefense Posture Needs Focus to Succeed," War On the Rocks, September 2023

"The Importance of Army Leadership to Countering WMD," Countering WMD Journal, Fall/Winter 2022

"To fix America's biodefense strategy, think smaller," Breaking Defense, October 2022

"On Biological War," Military Review, May-June 2022

"Would Russia Use a Tactical Nuclear Weapon in Ukraine?," Modern War Institute, March 2022

"Addressing Biocrises after COVID-19: Is Deterrence an Option?," War on the Rocks, October 2021

"A Weapons of Mass Destruction Strategy for the 21st Century," War on the Rocks, September 2021

"How to Build a Better Policy for Countering WMD," Breaking Defense, August 2021

"Addressing Biological Threats in the DoD CB Defense Program," USAF Center for Strategic Deterrence, April 2021

Countering WMD

Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing U.S. Government Policy
The Cold War phrase “weapons of mass destruction” continues to be used despite significant changes in international political cultures, military concepts of operation, and technology advances. Today, the term is used to address many things, from grams of ricin and barrels of industrial chemicals to megaton nuclear weapons. By referring to all nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons as well as biological, chemical and radiological hazards as “WMD,” we have lost the ability to accurately develop, assess, and discuss policy concerns relating to the contemporary use of unconventional weapons.

This book uses a public policy framework to examine how the U.S. government, and in particular the U.S. military, should address the potential use of unconventional weapons in the 21st century. He defines the problem, identifies the policy actors and reviews policy options. It discusses past policy efforts and offers a critical review of current strategies and how WMD issues are integrated into the current military Joint Operating Concepts – deterrence, cooperative security, major combat operations, irregular warfare, stability, and homeland security – and proposes a new national framework for countering WMD. His aim is to answer such questions as what does counter-proliferation mean and whether the U.S. government is adequately prepared to protect its citizens and its armed forces from adversaries developing unconventional weapons.

Published Articles: 2016-2020

"Fall In, Fall Out: When the U.S. Military (Almost) Brought Radiological Weapons to the Battlefield," Modern War Institute, September 2020

"Militarizing Global Health Isn't The Right Answer," War on the Rocks, May 2020

"The Military Is Not The Nation's Emergency Room Doctor," Modern War Institute, February 2020

"Tearing Down the Nuclear Firewall," War on the Rocks, October 2019

"Deterrence: I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means," Modern War Institute, October 2019

"Concerns Reemerge About Limited Nuclear War," ARMY Magazine, August 2019

"The Rise and Fall of Counterproliferation Policy" Nonproliferation Review, April 2019

"The New US Strategy to Tackle WMD Terrorism is New Wine in Old Wineskins" War on the Rocks, December 2018

"Terrorists sometimes use chemical weapons, but the OPCW should focus on states" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November 2018

"Synthetic Biology: The Promise and Peril of a New Dual-Use Technology" War on the Rocks, August 2018

"Bugs and Gas: Celebrating the Birth of the Army Chemical Corps?" Modern War Institute, June 2018

"Improving Our CWMD Capabilities: Who Will Lead?" PRISM, May 2018

"Russia’s Chemical Romance: Don’t Call It a WMD Attack" War on the Rocks, March 2018

"Who Killed the Dugway Sheep? Why It Matters Fifty Years Later" Modern War Institute, March 2018

"[NPR] Maintaining the Course - for the Most Part" Texas National Security Review, February 2018

"Bugs and Gas: Biothreats and WMD in the New National Security Strategy" Modern War Institute, January 2018

"Nuclear Weapons Planning is Not Simplistic" Lawfire, November 2017

"Why Tactical Nuclear Weapons Are Still A Thing" DefenseOne, October 2017

"We Don't Need Another National Biodefense Strategy" Modern War Institute, August 2017

"Mattis Talks Nukes, But Is Trump Listening?" War on the Rocks, January 2017

"All Cards on the Table: First Use of Nuclear Weapons," War on the Rocks, July 2016

"Chilcot and Opening Old Wounds on WMD Intel," War on the Rocks, July 2016

"Syria Hasn't Degraded Deterrence and Nonproliferation Regimes," War on the Rocks, May 2016

"We Need to Speak Honestly about Nuclear Threats," War on the Rocks, April 2016

"A Necessary Weapon: The Nuclear Enterprise Strikes Back," War on the Rocks, April 2016

"Known Unknowns: Iraqi WMD, 13 Years Later," War on the Rocks, February 2016

Where Are The WMDs?

Where Are The WMDs? The Reality of Chem-Bio Threats on the Home Front and the Battlefront, Naval Institute Press, Annapolis, MD, 2006

There are many books on the Iraq war and on WMD-type issues, but this is the first to offer a historical overview of chemical-biological defense issues and a policy analysis of how the U. S. government addresses the threat of weapons of mass destruction and how ground forces deal with the problem on the battlefield. Al Mauroni looks at how the 9/11 disaster forced the Department of Defense to review its management of chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) defense equipment and then make significant changes. He outlines in detail the government's decision to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and search for WMDs.

The fact that no such weapons were found, the author explains, has had dramatic consequences for how U.S. military forces address the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons in Iraq and how they support the federal response to terrorist incidents involving these weapons at home. Mauroni draws on two decades of experience in the area of chemical-biological defense policy to present this comprehensive analysis of the decision-making process within the Department of Defense and the actions of U.S. forces in the second Iraq War. Explaining that "WMD" is no longer a useful term for the threat faced by military leaders and emergency professionals, he also outlines a number of lessons learned from the conflicts in the Middle East and offers recommendations on how to improve CBRN defense for the future.

Army Chemical Review, 2007
Air and Space Power Review, 2007
Terrorism and Political Violence Review, 2008

CB Warfare - A Reference Handbook, 2d ed

Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Reference Handbook, second edition, ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara, CA, 2006

A thorough handbook covering the facts, history, and controversies surrounding our most controversial and misunderstood unconventional weapons.

Short of a nuclear holocaust, no weapons are more frightening to us—or more sensationalized by the media—than chemical and biological weapons. But we can face these invisible killers and even overcome them, writes former army chemical officer Al Mauroni, if we stop moralizing and focus on understanding the facts.

Unlike most books on this topic, the expanded second edition of Mauroni's popular reference handbook is neither sensationalistic nor moralistic. Instead, it offers readers a reasoned, thorough, and fact-based introduction to this highly charged issue.

Covering the period from World War I through the Iraq War, Chemical and Biological Warfare not only describes the development of key chemical and biological agents, such as anthrax, tularemia, brucellosis, VEE, Q fever, and botulinum toxin, it also assesses the threats we face, compares military CB warfare with terrorist incidents, explains effective defensive measures, and clarifies the responsibilities of the various federal agencies charged to address these issues. With extensive new material, this edition provides an authoritative and up-to-date introduction to this vitally important topic.

Midwest Book Review

CB Warfare - A Reference Handbook

Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Reference Handbook, ABC-Clio, Santa Barbara, CA, 2003

Chemical and Biological Warfare: A Reference Handbook surveys the history of modern chemical and biological weapons, from their genesis on World War I battlefields through their World War II deployment and Cold War research and development to present-day policies and strategies.

Casting aside moral issues and scare tactics, this uniquely unbiased reference explores both sides of this highly controversial topic, explaining the utility, necessity, and protected use of such weapons as well as the ramifications of their abuse. From delivery systems (bombs, missiles, rockets) and defense methods (detection devices, protective suits, decontaminants) to the deployment of such weapons in the Vietnam and Persian Gulf Wars, students and concerned citizens alike will discover the real reasons behind U.S. support for chemical and biological warfare.

Army Chemical Review

Chemical Demilitarization

Chemical Demilitarization: Public Policy Aspects, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 2003

For more than 15 years, the Army's chemical demilitarization program has been criticized and castigated as a potentially dangerous effort, poorly executed without concern for the public. By reviewing the chemical demilitarization program as a public policy area, Mauroni offers a different perspective on how the Army worked with Congress and the public to offer the safest program possible. The Army was forced to delay its own schedule and increase the breadth and depth of the program to address political demands and idealistic environmental concerns. Mauroni contends that Army and Department of Defense leadership's insistence on treating this program as a strictly technical effort, rather than as a public policy concern is in part responsible for the public's misunderstanding of the Army's execution of the program.

Despite its challenges, the Army is well on its way to accomplishing its goal of destroying the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile with no impact on the public or environment. They have stumbled through, however, rather than planned their exit. According to Mauroni, the Army needs to examine this program carefully to identify how to address public policy questions better in the future, to include responding to chemical and biological terrorism, developing a biological warfare vaccine program, and addressing future Gulf War illness questions. Their failure to learn will otherwise result in a continued inability to address critical questions on how they respond to chemical and biological warfare issues.

Army Chemical Review

CB Warfare History

America’s Struggle with Chemical-Biological Warfare, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 2000

Fear and ignorance have colored the perception of chemical and biological (CB) warfare both in the public and military spheres. Media coverage following the alleged gassing of sheep at Dugway Proving Ground in 1968 has led most people to believe that CB warfare is an unstoppable doomsday weapon of mass destruction. Yet, in 1972, General Creighton Abrams, the Army Chief of Staff, attempted to disestablish the Chemical Corps because he saw no need for it. Had that decision not been reversed in 1976, there would not have been any chemical defense specialists or equipment available for Operation Desert Storm in 1990.

This study tracks events relating to the Department of Defense's CB warfare program between 1968 and 1990, as it evolved up to the Gulf War. It also details how the military develops and procures CB defense equipment to protect today's soldiers. Mauroni draws parallels between the development of binary chemical weapons, the chemical demilitarization program, and the DoD CB terrorism response efforts, as each has very similar issues and solutions. He seeks to educate leading officials and the general public about the facts behind CB warfare and the options for coping with it in the future. With proper training and equipment, the challenge of CB warfare can be met and dealt with on the modern battlefield.

CB Defense - Persian Gulf War

Chemical-Biological Defense: U.S. Military Policies and Decisions in the Gulf War, Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT, 1998

The Gulf War has been the only conflict in the last half-century that featured the possible use of chemical-biological weapons against U.S. forces. Vulnerability to such an attack spurred the Department of Defense to action from the first hint of trouble in August 1990 through the end of hostilities in March 1991. Nearly disbanded in 1972, the U.S. Army Chemical Corps would be the prime force in ensuring that U.S. forces could both survive and sustain combat operations under chemical-biological warfare conditions. Focussing on the work of senior Army officials, this account assesses the degree of readiness achieved by the ground war's initiation and the lessons learned since the conflict.

For an appropriately trained and equipped military force, chemical weapons pose not the danger of mass destruction but the threat of mass disruption, no more deadly than smart munitions or B-52 air strikes. This book will reveal a coordinated response to train and equip U.S. forces did take place prior to the feared Iraqi chemical and biological attacks. Undocumented in any other book, it details the plans that rushed sixty "Fox" reconnaissance vehicles to the Gulf, the worldwide call for protective suits and masks, and the successful placement of biological agent detectors prior to the air offensive. In addition, the work addresses what really happened at Khamisiyah. Were troops exposed to chemical weapons and what is behind the mysterious Gulf War Syndrome?

Parameters Review

Published Articles: 2011-2015

"National Biodefense: You're Doing It Wrong," War on the Rocks, November 2015

"Why We Still Need a Nuclear-Armed Cruise Missile, War on the Rocks, October 2015

"Don't Fear the Dirty Bomb," War on the Rocks, October 2015

"Relax About the Anthrax," War on the Rocks, July 2015

"Anthrax Scare: Remain Calm! All is Well!" War on the Rocks, June 2015

"The Need for Nuclear Alerts," War on the Rocks, May 2015

"Chlorine Barrel Bombs in Context," War on the Rocks, March 2015

"This is Not the WMD Strategy You're Looking For," War on the Rocks, July 2014

"A Rational Approach to Nuclear Weapons Policy," War on the Rocks, April 2014

"Defining DoD's Role in Biodefense and Health Security," War on the Rocks, February 2014

"Maybe We Can Count on Containing Iran," War on the Rocks, February 2014

"Gauging the Risk from Bioterrorism," War On the Rocks, January 2014

"Facing Our Fears, Managing the Threat," Naval Institute Proceedings, October 2013

"Discarding the Cold War WMD Construct," USAF Counterproliferation Center, September 2013

"Preparing to Handle Syria's Chemical Weapons,"War On the Rocks, August 2013

"Five Myths of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Agenda," Armed Forces Journal, August 2013

"Countering WMD: Air Force Roles and Responsibilities," USAF Counterproliferation Center, April 2013

"Don't Say Farewell to Containment Quite Yet," Foreign Policy Magazine, October 2012

"Executing the DoD Executive Agent Role for Chemical and Biological Defense," US Army Combating WMD Journal, August 2012

"Nuclear Terrorism: Are We Prepared? " Homeland Security Affairs Journal, June 2012

"Seeking a Strategy to Counter Weapons of Mass Destruction," Small Wars Journal, May 22, 2012

Countering WMD in Africa

Presented at the Patuxent Defense Forum on 19 April 2011. Thesis: Our national strategy to counter WMD is focused on deterring nation-states that have or intend to develop WMD programs. It attempts to eliminate the WMD threat against US territories, forces, and interests through the development of global awareness and engagement efforts, offensive and defensive capabilities, and deployable response capabilities. However, this framework fails when applied to an area of operations such as US Africa Command, given the lack of a robust US military presence and the lack of an existing or potential threat, either from nation-states or transnational actors.

Biodefense Monograph

“Progress of ‘Biodefense for the 21st Century’ – A Five-Year Evaluation,” Chapter 3, Project on National Security Reform Case Studies Working Group Report, March 2012 (Originally presented on Thursday, January 15, 2009)

National strategies related to bioterrorism have emphasized a single approach to responding to a bioterror attack and assigned specific roles and responsibilities to discrete agencies, but there is limited evidence of real integration or oversight of these strategies. The NSC and the Homeland Security Council (HSC) both evaluate biological terrorism issues and recommend policy initiatives (international and domestic, respectively). Within the HSC, a senior director for biological defense addresses avian and pandemic influenza, and a joint NSC/HSC Policy Coordinating Committee (PCC) exists to coordinate cross-agency efforts to counter biological threats. There is no evidence, however, that the PCC has an implementation strategy or has conducted actual oversight, critical evaluation, or integration of bioterrorism planning and response capabilities. The overall execution of the Biodefense Strategy has been disorganized and incoherent, resulting in gaps in protecting U.S. citizens and critical infrastructure against the threat of biological terrorism.

Military Aspects of Chemical Warfare

"History of the Chemical Threat, Chemical Terrorism, and Its Implications for Military Medicine," chapter 4 of Military Aspects of Chemical Warfare, 2008.
by Jeffery K. Smart, Al Mauroni, Benjamin a. Hill Jr, and Allart B. Kok

This chapter is the third in the series of historical investigations into the use of chemicals as weapons, following Chapter 2, History of Chemical Warfare, which focuses on the history of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and Chapter 3, History of the medical management of Chemical Casualties, which describes the organizational management of the resultant casualties. Over the last 20 years, the nature of the chemical threat dramatically changed. This chapter outlines the historical progression of chemical weapon development, summarizes how conventional and unconventional agents may be delivered in the contexts of conventional conflict and terrorism, and addresses the status of current warfare capabilities in relation to the evolution and of international chemical warfare agreements.

Published Articles - 2006-2010

"Homeland Insecurity: Thinking About CBRN Terrorism," Homeland Security Affairs VI, no. 3, September 2010

"A Counter-WMD Strategy for the Future," U.S. Army's Parameters journal, Summer 2010, Vol. 40, No. 2.

"Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction: Aligning Capabilities with National Strategy," U.S. Army's Combating WMD Journal, Issue 4, 2010.

"Making Foreign Consequence Management Harder," Praeger Security International, September 2009

"Chem-Bio Weapon Threat: Do Not Exaggerate Capabilities of Nonstate Actors," Defense News, July 6, 2009

“The New Threat of Unconventional Warfare,” Joint Forces Quarterly, 4th Quarter 2008

“There Is No ‘E’ in Combating WMD,” U.S. Army's Combating WMD Journal, Issue 2, 2008

“Responding to Bioterrorism: Are We On Course?” Praeger Security International, December 2007

“The Chemical Weapons Convention – Ten Years Later,” Praeger Security International, March 2007

“The Future of CBRN Defense,” Joint Forces Quarterly, 1st Quarter 2007

“The Chemical Corps’ Expanding Roles,” Army Chemical Review, January 2006

Published Articles - 2001-2005

“Birth of the U.S. Army Chemical Corps,” Relevance: The Quarterly Journal of the Great War Society, Autumn 2005

"CBRN Defense of US Military Installations and Facilities," NBC Report, Spring/Summer 2005 (short version)

"CBRN Defense of US Military Installations and Facilities," unpublished manuscript submitted to the Strategic Studies Institute, August 2005 (long version)

“A Tribute to Major General John J. Hayes,” Army Chemical Review, October 2004

“The Changing Face of Biological Warfare Defense,” Army Chemical Review, April 2004

“The US Army Chemical Corps – Past, Present, and Future,” On Point, Army Historical Foundation, March 2004

“Weapons of Mass Delusion,” Armed Forces Journal International, March 2004

“Responding to Terrorism,” Army Chemical Review, February 2002

“How the Chemical Corps Addresses Hazardous Materials,” Army Chemical Review, February 2002

“Deadly Void: Looking for Leadership in the DOD Chemical-Biological Defense Program," Armed Forces Journal International, December 2001

“Reflections on Khamisiyah,” Army Chemical Review, August 2001

“Pentagon Unfairly Criticized in Chem-Bio Defense Effort,” National Defense, June 2001

Published Articles - 1995-2000

"A Rebuttal to Ataxia,” Journal for Homeland Defense, December 2000

“A Cure Worse Than the Disease?” Armed Forces Journal International, July 1999

“CWC: End or Beginning of Work for the Chemical Corps?” Army Chemical Review, July 1998

“Smoke Operations for the 21st Century,” Institute of Land Warfare, AUSA, October 1997

“NBC Defense Operations – Training the Combat Arms Leaders,” Army Chemical Review, July 1997

“The Great Fox Hunt – Parts I & II,” Army Chemical Review, July 1996 & January 1997

“NBC Defense Sector – Preparing for Force XXI,” Army Chemical Review, January 1996

“Joint Service Material Programs Groups – Why They Haven’t Worked,” Army Chemical Review, July 1995