Why are chemical and biological weapons banned?

We have an international agreement that we will not fire or drop rusty munitions because they could cause blood poisoning. If that doesn't clearly show the ridiculous idiocy of the leaders of this planet I don't know if anything will.

 

That's a cop-out. "Oh, we didn't mean to kill all those people and spread cancer. That was just a side effect." Nobody buys that.

 

Very true however the are differing degrees of such effects and dangers. However since the bann only covers bio weapons it does leave a loop hole for other type of weapons that have similar effects.

 

Hitler was extremely against the use of chemical weapons on the battlefield. He had first hand knowledge of them from actually going temporarily blind from mustard gas in ww1. He considered their use totally ineffective and did not consider them a viable wartime strategy. Using them in gas chambers was the most effective way to carry out his final solution. If other methods were better he would have done that.

It was the Japanese that had a huge fascination with biological and chemical weapons.

 

Good point, come to think of it. it's just hypocrisy for the establishment to show they care about not killing civilians. a bunch of total BS and you pointed it out.

 

Yeah and I'm sure it would have been really effective on the battlefield.

Hey enemy soldiers, just walk into that building over there while we drop these pesticide pells into some water for you. Thanks.

It wasn't a weapon.

 

Those in denial do.

Those it suits to believe it do.

But no, no one honest would.

In some ways, it is actually more evil, almost like putting a time bomb inside the person.

However, I wonder if the actual research on chemical weapons is actually illegal? I understand that there use is illegal, albeit 'some' nations ignore that, however, how about the mere research of it?

I also wonder if it is possible there could be a chemical weapon that was almost benign, and more so that many of the legal weapons that can be used.

An example?

Okay, let's suppose, that via said research, a discovery was made which would permit Nitrous oxide disable a particular enemy unit, in a non lethal, but v effective manner?

Would that really be so bad, doesn't it all come down to what is used, how, and why, more than anything else?

The above was just a brief example, I don't know how well or how effective Nit Oxide could be used, but it doesn't need to be specifically that.

The end result would likely reflect that psyche of the state that developed it.

The more psychotic the state, the more sinister the form and use, the more stable it is, the more benign it might be?

 

Who mentioned a battlefield?

I was exclusively speaking of the use and legality of chemical weapons, across the board.

I even asked if using mace could, at least technically, be argued to be a weapon that is chemical based, on those ground, illegal?

You have a fixed idea of what a weapon constitutes, but to me, it constitutes anything that can be used to cause harm, injury or death to another.

Putting people in rooms, then releasing a chemical is as much a weapon as anything, imo. Before they used that, they tried shooting them - another weapon.

 

Well Hitler mainly held back because in WWII, there was no way to protect the horses that were vital to German (and Soviet) logistics from nerve gas attack.

In World War I, they didn't have chemicals that killed unless inhaled and they actually made gas masks for horses.

 

The U.S. never provided biological weapons to anyone. And no not Iraq.

The U.S. back before 9-11 routinely provided disease samples to both foreign nations and individuals for research.

But the samples the U.S. provided was not weaponized and could not be used on the battlefield or as a terrorist weapon unless massively altered.

 

Hitler held back because chemical weapons did not fit in with their military strategy. Germany was a very mobile force using the blitzkrieg to do this. There is no point tainting the land your very troops are going to be going through in a matter of hours. The other engagements such as Stalingrad simply would not have been useful to use chemical weapons as his troops were in close proximity.

 

That is insane. By that reasoning, anything using gunpowder is a chemical weapon.

Utterly ridiculous.

 

Too broad a term.

By that standard, almost ANY mechanical or electrical device is a weapon.

You can kill people with a hair dryer or a keyboard.

Doesn't make them weapons though.

 

If you were applying gunpowder directly to people, then I suppose. But I don't think the comparison makes any sense -- you use gunpowder to propel phosphorous at your targets, come to think of it.

You've seen what white phosphorous does to people, right?

 

That's true, any of those things can be weapons. What actually make something a weapon is when you use it to harm people. White phosphorous is used to harm people, is it not? Therefore, it's a weapon.

It's like you're saying that knives aren't weapons because you could use them to spread butter.

 

It burns them.

Big deal.

Most severe injuries whether it be from burns, penetrating wounds, or blunt force trauma are extremely painfull.

 

Big deal?

There speak a man never burned by it, or without a child who has been burned by it.

*Shakes head*

 

It would make them a murder weapon in a trial, yes it would.

 

Be dismissive if you wish, but exactly what experience do you have with WP?

But even if used as a weapon to kill people.

Say you had a serial killer that murdered 50 people with hair dryers.

No matter the death toll, that would not make hair dryers a weapon by any stretch of the meaning of the word.

 

In all honesty, I don't see much point to these bans either.

War is hell. When it comes down to it, people will use whatever is effective.

Whether I choose to use mustard gas or firebombs is really irrelevant.

 

Not quite sure what your point is. How does that mean it's not a weapon?

 

Dismissive?

It was YOU who were being 'dismissive', when in response to the notion of WP being used as a chemical weapon, causing terrible burns to kids, responded by saying 'big deal'.

I think any intelligent and honest person here would regard that as a morally inappropriate, and dismissive response, don't you?

 

Listen.

Here is how it works.

If I killed you in my kitchen, with a rolling pin, the prosecution would present the rolling pin to the judge, as the murder weapon.

If I took anti freeze and laced your food, to poison you, said anti freeze would be cited as the murder weapon.

Do you see?

 

No, no, no, accepting this sort of mantra is all wrong.

Yes - it is hell....which is precisely why we, as people, should not be accepting of it, in all but the most extreme of circumstances.

The most extreme of circumstances would be pretty much if your country was on the brink of being invaded, by another.

Anything other than that is questionable.

 

WP is not a chemical weapon.

And I was not aware that it was purposely made to seek out and burn children.

That still makes no sense whatsoever.

An item being used as a weapon does not mean that the same items are thus redefined as "weapons".