Why are chemical and biological weapons banned?

I really do not see why you are not taking this in.

The use of WP as a weapon is illegal, according to international laws and treaties.

It can be used for other purposes, but to use it as a weapon is illegal.

Some nations, being that they lie and do not care, they violate it's use, and have used it as a weapon.

When it is used a weapon, it has terrible consequences;

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKgph9PV3SA"]Israeli army 'using white phosphorus' - 12 Jan 08 - YouTube[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfzG_jrnrZ0"]Death and injuries in Gaza - YouTube[/ame]

Those who can do such a thing are gangsters and criminals, and there can be no defence for their actions.

 

Are you saying it makes no sense for experienced detectives to look for the murder weapon then, if the murder weapon is something unconventional, such as a picture frame?

After all, if is not a weapon, what is the use of finding it, and presenting that in court?

In law, if you used the picture frame to batter someone to death, it would be the murder weapon.

Why does that make no sense?

 

I've seen considerably worse.

 

See the WP wikipedia entry.

Arms control status and military regulationsThere are multiple international laws that could be seen to regulate white phosphorus use.[75] Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol prohibits the use of said incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas.

However, the use against military targets outside civilian areas is not explicitly banned by any treaty. There is a debate[who?] on whether white phosphorus should be considered a chemical weapon and thus be outlawed by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which went into effect in April 1997. The convention is meant to prohibit weapons that are "dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare" (Article II, Definitions, 9, "Purposes not Prohibited" c.).

The convention defines a "toxic chemical" as a chemical "which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals" (CWC, II). An annex lists chemicals that fall under this definition and WP is not listed in the Schedules of chemical weapons or precursors.[76]

In an 2005 interview with RAI, Peter Kaiser, spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (an organization overseeing the CWC and reporting directly to the UN General Assembly), questioned whether the weapon should fall under the convention's provisions:

No it's not forbidden by the CWC if it is used within the context of a military application which does not require or does not intend to use the toxic properties of white phosphorus. White phosphorus is normally used to produce smoke, to camouflage movement.
If that is the purpose for which the white phosphorus is used, then that is considered under the convention legitimate use.
If on the other hand the toxic properties of white phosphorus are specifically intended to be used as a weapon, that of course is prohibited, because the way the convention is structured or the way it is in fact applied, any chemicals used against humans or animals that cause harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical are considered chemical weapons".[77]
Kaiser was a staff spokesman for the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.[78] The OPCW, using member votes, creates Schedules of chemical weapons or dual-use chemicals of concern and white phosphorus is not in any of these schedules.

The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, not the Chemical Weapons Convention, goes on, in its Protocol III, to prohibit the use of all air-delivered incendiary weapons against civilian populations, or for indiscriminate incendiary attacks against military forces co-located with civilians.[79] However, that protocol also specifically excludes weapons whose incendiary effects are secondary, such as smoke grenades. This has often been read as excluding white phosphorus munitions from this protocol, as well. Several countries, most notably Israel, are not signatories to Protocol III.[80]

The legal position however, is not the only consideration in any war.[clarification needed] For instance, concerning the U.S. use of white phosphorus in Iraq, the British Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell, said

"The use of this weapon may technically have been legal, but its effects are such that it will hand a propaganda victory to the insurgency. The denial of use followed by the admission will simply convince the doubters that there was something to hide".[81]

As you can see white phosphous is NOT considered a chemical weapon nor is its use banned by any treaty.

Case closed.

 

Earlier, when another member cited the terrible injuries caused by use of WP as a weapon, you responded with 'big deal'.

That you can watch the footage I gave you, and now respond with 'I've seen considerably worse', confirms to me that there appears to be something lacking in what you say, I can't quite place my finger on it......

 

The world is full of tragedy.

I try not to have an emotional response to people hurt.

 

Again.

It is illegal for anyone to use WP as a weapon against a civilian population.

How many times?

What I showed you before was precisely that, filmed, and testified to.

Why live life in a state of denial?

'The use of incendiary weapons against civilians was banned by signatory countries in the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III. The USA signed Protocols I and II on March 24, 1995 under the Clinton Administration'

*From your beloved Wiki*

 

You can be empathetic yet not overtly emotional.

That is what your responses lack - human empathy.

It's okay, I know there are people who are like that, I don't expect you to see it.

 

Good.

We can agree to disagree.

 

Cluster bombs are not precise, they can not be aimed at a specific target but are used to blanket an entire area with explosions. They kill indiscriminately and are designed to maim and kill, not to destroy infrastructure like "big" bombs are. They have also been proven to be unreliable, a certain percentage not exploding on impact, therefore remaining active for years after, even after the conflict has ceased.

If one weapon must be banned, it's cluster munitions.