Why are chemical and biological weapons banned?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Jack Napier, Jan 5, 2012.

  1. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I do not endorse their use, but then I would sooner live in a world minus the killing, and the weak justification given for it, however, to the best of my knowlege, chemical and biological weapons are banned, or at least their use is banned.

    Of course, as with all laws, there are those that work to break it, with both Israel and the US military accused of having used white phospherous as a weapon.

    However, it seems strange to me that we specifically ban the use of chemical weapons, yet the use of a whole range of terrible bombs, and other weapons is entirely accepted.

    Yes, of course chemical and biological weapon use has the potential to be so very bad, however, would it really be any worse than the deaths and disabilities caused by those weapons NOT banned? Heavens, Russia and the US have enough nuke war heads to blow the planet up, several times over, they are legal, yet, there is this moral high ground over chemical or biological weapons.

    And what really constitutes a chemical weapon, anyhow?

    Sometimes these buzz phrases are put out in the media, and we don't examine them properly.

    Could it be argued that police officers using pepper spray or mace, during riots, are using a weapon that relies on chemicals?

    Also, it means we can look at fantastic (but true) stories, such as this, in awe!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb


    The "halitosis bomb" and "gay bomb" are informal names for two theoretical non-lethal chemical weapons, which a United States Air Force research laboratory speculated about producing, which involved discharging female sex pheromones over enemy forces in order to make them sexually attracted to each other.

    Or this...

    The ever-ingenious inventors at Israel's weapons research and development directorate have created a schoolboy's dream: the ultimate stink bomb, with a disgusting smell that lingers in its victim's clothing for up to five years.

    The foul-smelling liquid squirted by angry or frightened skunks at their victims was analysed by Israeli defence scientists and a synthetic version created for use in a weapon they call the "skunk bomb". Fired with great care, and from a respectable range, it is designed to force civilian protesters to disperse. Security forces would not be keen to arrest the victims, and they would be equally unwelcome at home.

    When soldiers try to control crowds, or take action against guerrillas hiding in urban areas, there is a high risk of damage to property and people near by. Military weapons are designed to kill, and are often too powerful to use under these circumstances, as Israel Defence Forces have discovered in their clashes with Palestinian crowds. After years of using rubber bullets and tear gas, plus small arms, Israeli forces have been under pressure to create less-than-lethal weapons with which to target Palestinians. The skunk bomb is one example

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...nvent-stink-bomb-for-riot-control-546665.html
     
  2. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,158
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    A lot of it is a reaction to the horrible things that happened during World War I, still. Of course, by that logic, we should also ban machine guns.

    I think (somewhat cynically perhaps) that biological and chemical weapons have been banned by the arms-dealing countries and their alliances because some biological and chemical weapons are cheaper, in terms of dollars-per-deaths, than nuclear weapons.
     
  3. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Well, yes, that is my pattern of thought.

    It would be entirely noble if the ban extended to any weapons that caused maim or death to potential innocents, yet, on one hand, we seem to have this international agreement (in theory), for ethical reasons, while at the same time retaining lots of weapons that likely hurt and kill more people.
     
  4. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    White phosphorous is NOT a chemical weapon. I don't know why that is so hard to understand.

    By the way, the U.S. still keeps fire bombs in its arsenal. They call them that because in the Vietnam War napalm got a bad reputation.

    But in general, chemicals and biologicals are considered a WMD and a no-no because their area effects are difficult to limit and they kill humans with no regard for military, civlian, combatant, noncombatant.

    You can't precisely target any kind of chemical or biological weapon.
     
  5. My Fing ID

    My Fing ID Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    12,225
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Yeah, WP is not a chemical weapon. It's used in smoke grenades, not sure if we still use it in artillery rounds.

    Anyway chem/bio weapons are a strange monster. I guess they really didn't need to be banned because, as we learned in WWI, mass deployment of them is just insanity. You might damage the enemy, or the wind may just push it right back on you! CS could help in a firefight, but then you're forcing your troops to mask up which is extremely limiting. You can't talk, see, breath as well, etc while wearing a mask. If we didn't have optics shooting accurately would be nearly impossible!

    As for napalm, guess we never signed that treaty though most other nations have. Oh and then there's agent orange and other herbicides, not sure how those work out with the chem weapon deal.

    Anyway there's some (*)(*)(*)(*), do with it what you will.
     
  6. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, Agent Orange is a defoliant. It isn't going to kill you in the near future if you sprayed it in your face accidentally. Sure, there is an elevated cancer risk but that isn't until years down the road.

    I've used the same stuff before years ago on the farm.
     
  7. My Fing ID

    My Fing ID Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    12,225
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It's a strange balance. Land mines are another item that is/trying to be banned. We're trying to develop land mines that kill themselves after a period of time to prevent civilian casualties after a war has been fought. Many countries have a problem with old mines.

    Anyway the common theme seems to be getting rid of 'dumb ordinance' and going for stuff that's under human control. Yeah civilian casualties happen, but in theory you'll end up with less.
     
  8. My Fing ID

    My Fing ID Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    12,225
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    That's true, I just didn't know how far reaching the terms were for chemical weapons. DU is another one up for argument. I haven't seen it be an issue but there are conflicting accounts.
     
  9. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Depleted uranium is a toxic heavy metal. It doesn't fit the definition of chemical or even as some have laughably claimed, nuclear weapon.

    People forget that there are a lot of toxic, dangerous, and deadly substances used as weapons that are NOT WMDs. Because their dangerous toxicity is only a secondary (and unintended) effect.
     
  10. My Fing ID

    My Fing ID Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2009
    Messages:
    12,225
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Heh, I don't know why anyone would say DU is a chem weapon, and especially don't get why they'd call it nuclear lol! It is its own issue. You don't want that stuff messing up the nation you used them in nor your own men. To be honest I'm curious why we even use the stuff. Surely we have non-DU rounds that can go straight through a T-72.
     
  11. kenrichaed

    kenrichaed Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2011
    Messages:
    8,539
    Likes Received:
    128
    Trophy Points:
    0
    These weapons are banned for one simple reason. Nobody wants to get hit with it. We don't want to get hit with it and neither do the people were fighting so its just agreed they won't be used. Their effectiveness is questionable anyway. Even Hitler didn't want to use them after going blind for a little while from mustard gas in ww1.
     
  12. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,670
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A T-72 yes. But not necessarily the frontal armor of a newer or heavily upgraded tank.

    Also, a 120 mm depleted uranium shell can go through a lot more than tank armor.

    In the first Gulf War, U.S. M-1 tanks repeatedly use their thermal sights to detect Iraqi tanks concealing themselves behind sand dunes and fired through the dunes (several feet at mininum) and hit and destroyed the tank on the other side.

    And yes, some antinuclear websites include uses of depleted uranium shells on their sites as examples of using "nuclear material in wartime". They equate it with hypothetical dirty bombs.
     
  13. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I believe Dupont, Monsanto, and one other corporate giant are currently lobbying to allow agent orange to be used on genetically modified corn crops. Cancer for everybody!!! (years down the road, so, no big deal I guess).
     
  14. SkullKrusher

    SkullKrusher Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2011
    Messages:
    5,032
    Likes Received:
    2,137
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Biological weapons are banned in other countries so that USA can manufacture Biological weapons to sell to those countries who comply with the ban. Then if one of those countries does something terrible, like sell Oil at cheap prices, undercutting World Oil Cartel, USA can declare war on them for possessing WMD,invade, occupy, and get that Oil supply under control of some new puppet govt.
     
  15. pakuaman

    pakuaman Active Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,685
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Bio weapos are much more horrible than bombs or guns because of the horrible death it causes. Those weapons are not just aimed to kill they are aimed to cause a slow painful horrendous death. Also a bio weapon like gas can spread real easily causing collateral damage. And if for instance say a bio toxin was introduced to a major water way it could ruin the water supply for multiple countries.
     
  16. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Even Hitler didn't like chemical weapons.
     
  17. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    WP can indeed be used as a weapon, and with the most tragic results.

    It is not intended to be used as a weapon, I will grant you that, but there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that it can and has been used that way.

    I can understand the principle of the ban, I support the principle of it, but surley many bombs and weapons that are not banned, have just as much capacity to effect areas, kill humans, and often in a non precise manner?

    The daddy of them would be nukes. It just seems very odd to me that something such as mustard gas may be banned, while at the same time, it is okay to have weapons that would potentially kill everything, absolutely and finally.

    Also, when is a chemical weapon a chemical weapon?

    If you were a lawyer, representing a client who had been sprayed in the face with mace or pepper spray, by cops, could you make an arguement that these are actually chemical weapons?
     
  18. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Didn't he?

    What was Zyklone B then, if not a chemical, that was used as a weapon to take human life?
     
  19. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Good summary.

    Cynical yet quite accurate.
     
  20. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am not a weapons expert, however, I bet someone who is could, if they played Devil's advocate, cite for you several unbanned weapons, that cause horrible deaths, often not quick at all, but slow and painful. They could likely cite others that cause massive 'collateral damage' (dead people), and others that go on killing innocents, long after a conflict has ended.

    I am not advocating for the use of chemical weapons, lord no, I just cannot see how anyone can reconcile themselves to taking the moral high ground over their manufacture and use, while, at the same time, holding the thought that it is acceptable to manufacture and use other kinds of weapons, that have a similar outcome.

    Jack
     
  21. darckriver

    darckriver New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    Messages:
    7,773
    Likes Received:
    239
    Trophy Points:
    0
    When it's not ajar?

    Oh no - sorry - that's a weird twist of logic on a door that's not a door.

    So, how about, "when it's asphyxiate"?
     
  22. Panzerkampfwagen

    Panzerkampfwagen New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2010
    Messages:
    11,570
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was an execution method, not a chemical weapon.
     
  23. Jack Napier

    Jack Napier Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2011
    Messages:
    40,439
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's just how you want to phrase it though.

    You seemed to imply that there was some crumb of humanity in Hitler, by virtue of a perceived dislike he had of the use of chemical weapons, and yet all the while, he knows that a chemical is being used, to kill large numbers of people. Call it an exection method if you want, it was a weapon against those that died, and it was chemical in nature. If Hitler thought the use of biological and chemical weapons would have won Germany the war, then I believe Germany would have used them. After all, Hitler and Germany did try to pursue the atom bomb, but they shelved the idea, because at that time it was impossible for them.

    However, once more, had he been able to do it, there is no doubt in my mind that he would have ordered it's use, if doing so delivered victory for the axis.
     
  24. BuckNaked

    BuckNaked New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    12,335
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    0
    War is about money and they cost too much to clean up after.
     
  25. Daybreaker

    Daybreaker Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2007
    Messages:
    17,158
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Because it's a chemical used to kill people rather horribly.

    Good thing nukes and cluster bombs are so precise or we'd look kind of hypocritical.
     
    Jack Napier and (deleted member) like this.

Share This Page