US to Use Chemical Weapons in Iraq War?
Moderator: Edi
US to Use Chemical Weapons in Iraq War?
So, the US intends to go to war over weapons of mass of destruction, in order to disarm Iraq and to destroy its stocks of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, while intending to use the very same weapons in hostilities as explicitly prohibited by the Chemical Weapons convention (see here) it is party to. Talk about hypocrisy...
It should be noted that the CWC is not a UN treaty, but an independent treaty between 149 states that was brought into being without UN auspices. Read and enjoy. Included below this piece are the first two articles of the CWC for your convenience.
[Edit]
Added the source:
An article in the New Zealand Herald:
[/edit]
Toxic gas, drugs in Bush arsenal
04.03.2003
By GEOFFREY LEAN and SEVERIN CARRELL
The United States is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance.
"Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be used.
The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare.
This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home: both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by British police.
The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf.
It is British policy not to allow troops to take part in operations where riot-control agents are used.
But US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked President George W. Bush to authorise their use. Bush is understood to have agreed.
Internal Pentagon documents also show the US is developing a range of calmative gases - including sedatives such as the benzodiazepines and new drugs that affect the nervous system - also banned for battlefield use.
US defence sources predict these could be used in Iraq by elite special forces units to attack command and control bunkers deep underground.
Rear-Admiral Stephen Baker, senior adviser to the Centre for Defence Information in Washington, said US special forces had knock-out gases that could "neutralise" people.
"I would think that if they get a chance to use them, they will."
The Pentagon said last week that the decision to use riot-control agents "is made by the commander in the field".
Rumsfeld became the first senior figure on either side of the impending conflict to announce his wish to use chemical agents in a little-noticed comment to the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on February 5.
He attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in international treaties on using the weapons in warfare and specified that they could be used "where there are enemy troops in a cave [and] you know there are women and children in there with them".
General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of using them against human shields.
The revelations leave the Bush Administration open to charges of double standards at a time when it is making Iraq's suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons the casus belli.
Leading experts and Whitehall officials fear that using even pepper spray and CS gas would destroy the credibility of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoke Iraqi chemical retaliation and set a disastrous legal precedent.
Professor Julian Perry Robinson, an authority on the convention, said: "Legally speaking, Iraq would be totally justified in releasing chemical weapons over the United Kingdom if the alliance uses them in Baghdad.
"When the war is over and these things have been used they will have been legitimised as a tool of war, and the principle of toxic weapons being banned will have gone."
The Ministry of Defence has warned the US that it will not allow British troops to be involved in operations where riot-control agents are used, or to transport them to the battlefield, but Britain is even more concerned about the calmatives.
A special working group of the Federation of American Scientists concluded last month that using even the mildest of these weapons to incapacitate people would kill 9 per cent of them. It added: "Chemical incapacitating weapons are as likely as bullets to cause death."
********************
Chemical Weapons Convention
Article I
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS
1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:
(a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;
(b) To use chemical weapons;
(c) To engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons;
(d) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy chemical weapons it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
3. Each State Party undertakes to destroy all chemical weapons it abandoned on the territory of another State Party, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
4. Each State Party undertakes to destroy any chemical weapons production facilities it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
*****************************
Article II
For the purposes of this Convention:
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
2. "Toxic Chemical" means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)
3. "Precursor" means:
Any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. This includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)
4. "Key Component of Binary or Multicomponent Chemical Systems" (hereinafter referred to as "key component") means:
The precursor which plays the most important role in determining the toxic properties of the final product and reacts rapidly with other chemicals in the binary or multicomponent system.
5. "Old Chemical Weapons" means:
(a) Chemical weapons which were produced before 1925; or
(b) Chemical weapons produced in the period between 1925 and 1946 that have deteriorated to such extent that they can no longer be used as chemical weapons.
6. "Abandoned Chemical Weapons" means:
Chemical weapons, including old chemical weapons, abandoned by a State after 1 January 1925 on the territory of another State without the consent of the latter.
7. "Riot Control Agent" means:
Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.
8. "Chemical Weapons Production Facility":
(a) Means any equipment, as well as any building housing such equipment, that was designed, constructed or used at any time since 1 January 1946:
(i) As part of the stage in the production of chemicals ("final technological stage") where the material flows would contain, when the equipment is in operation:
(1) Any chemical listed in Schedule 1 in the Annex on Chemicals; or
(2) Any other chemical that has no use, above 1 tonne per year on the territory of a State Party or in any other place under the jurisdiction or control of a State Party, for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, but can be used for chemical weapons purposes; or
(ii) For filling chemical weapons, including, inter alia, the filling of chemicals listed in Schedule 1 into munitions, devices or bulk storage containers; the filling of chemicals into containers that form part of assembled binary munitions and devices or into chemical submunitions that form part of assembled unitary munitions and devices, and the loading of the containers and chemical submunitions into the respective munitions and devices;
(b) Does not mean:
(i) Any facility having a production capacity for synthesis of chemicals specified in subparagraph (a) (i) that is less than 1 tonne;
(ii) Any facility in which a chemical specified in subparagraph (a) (i) is or was produced as an unavoidable by-product of activities for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, provided that the chemical does not exceed 3 per cent of the total product and that the facility is subject to declaration and inspection under the Annex on Implementation and Verification (hereinafter referred to as "Verification Annex"); or
(iii) The single small-scale facility for production of chemicals listed in Schedule 1 for purposes not prohibited under this Convention as referred to in Part VI of the Verification Annex.
9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means: (emphasis added)
(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;
(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;
(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
10. "Production Capacity" means:
The annual quantitative potential for manufacturing a specific chemical based on the technological process actually used or, if the process is not yet operational, planned to be used at the relevant facility. It shall be deemed to be equal to the nameplate capacity or, if the nameplate capacity is not available, to the design capacity. The nameplate capacity is the product output under conditions optimized for maximum quantity for the production facility, as demonstrated by one or more test-runs. The design capacity is the corresponding theoretically calculated product output.
11. "Organization" means the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons established pursuant to Article VIII of this Convention.
12. For the purposes of Article VI:
(a) "Production" of a chemical means its formation through chemical reaction;
(b) "Processing" of a chemical means a physical process, such as formulation, extraction and purification, in which a chemical is not converted into another chemical;
(c) "Consumption" of a chemical means its conversion into another chemical via a chemical reaction.
[/b]
It should be noted that the CWC is not a UN treaty, but an independent treaty between 149 states that was brought into being without UN auspices. Read and enjoy. Included below this piece are the first two articles of the CWC for your convenience.
[Edit]
Added the source:
An article in the New Zealand Herald:
[/edit]
Toxic gas, drugs in Bush arsenal
04.03.2003
By GEOFFREY LEAN and SEVERIN CARRELL
The United States is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance.
"Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be used.
The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare.
This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home: both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by British police.
The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf.
It is British policy not to allow troops to take part in operations where riot-control agents are used.
But US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has asked President George W. Bush to authorise their use. Bush is understood to have agreed.
Internal Pentagon documents also show the US is developing a range of calmative gases - including sedatives such as the benzodiazepines and new drugs that affect the nervous system - also banned for battlefield use.
US defence sources predict these could be used in Iraq by elite special forces units to attack command and control bunkers deep underground.
Rear-Admiral Stephen Baker, senior adviser to the Centre for Defence Information in Washington, said US special forces had knock-out gases that could "neutralise" people.
"I would think that if they get a chance to use them, they will."
The Pentagon said last week that the decision to use riot-control agents "is made by the commander in the field".
Rumsfeld became the first senior figure on either side of the impending conflict to announce his wish to use chemical agents in a little-noticed comment to the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on February 5.
He attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in international treaties on using the weapons in warfare and specified that they could be used "where there are enemy troops in a cave [and] you know there are women and children in there with them".
General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of using them against human shields.
The revelations leave the Bush Administration open to charges of double standards at a time when it is making Iraq's suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons the casus belli.
Leading experts and Whitehall officials fear that using even pepper spray and CS gas would destroy the credibility of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoke Iraqi chemical retaliation and set a disastrous legal precedent.
Professor Julian Perry Robinson, an authority on the convention, said: "Legally speaking, Iraq would be totally justified in releasing chemical weapons over the United Kingdom if the alliance uses them in Baghdad.
"When the war is over and these things have been used they will have been legitimised as a tool of war, and the principle of toxic weapons being banned will have gone."
The Ministry of Defence has warned the US that it will not allow British troops to be involved in operations where riot-control agents are used, or to transport them to the battlefield, but Britain is even more concerned about the calmatives.
A special working group of the Federation of American Scientists concluded last month that using even the mildest of these weapons to incapacitate people would kill 9 per cent of them. It added: "Chemical incapacitating weapons are as likely as bullets to cause death."
********************
Chemical Weapons Convention
Article I
GENERAL OBLIGATIONS
1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:
(a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;
(b) To use chemical weapons;
(c) To engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons;
(d) To assist, encourage or induce, in any way, anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.
2. Each State Party undertakes to destroy chemical weapons it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
3. Each State Party undertakes to destroy all chemical weapons it abandoned on the territory of another State Party, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
4. Each State Party undertakes to destroy any chemical weapons production facilities it owns or possesses, or that are located in any place under its jurisdiction or control, in accordance with the provisions of this Convention.
5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.
*****************************
Article II
For the purposes of this Convention:
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
2. "Toxic Chemical" means:
Any chemical which through its chemical action on life processes can cause death, temporary incapacitation or permanent harm to humans or animals. This includes all such chemicals, regardless of their origin or of their method of production, and regardless of whether they are produced in facilities, in munitions or elsewhere.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, toxic chemicals which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)
3. "Precursor" means:
Any chemical reactant which takes part at any stage in the production by whatever method of a toxic chemical. This includes any key component of a binary or multicomponent chemical system.
(For the purpose of implementing this Convention, precursors which have been identified for the application of verification measures are listed in Schedules contained in the Annex on Chemicals.)
4. "Key Component of Binary or Multicomponent Chemical Systems" (hereinafter referred to as "key component") means:
The precursor which plays the most important role in determining the toxic properties of the final product and reacts rapidly with other chemicals in the binary or multicomponent system.
5. "Old Chemical Weapons" means:
(a) Chemical weapons which were produced before 1925; or
(b) Chemical weapons produced in the period between 1925 and 1946 that have deteriorated to such extent that they can no longer be used as chemical weapons.
6. "Abandoned Chemical Weapons" means:
Chemical weapons, including old chemical weapons, abandoned by a State after 1 January 1925 on the territory of another State without the consent of the latter.
7. "Riot Control Agent" means:
Any chemical not listed in a Schedule, which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.
8. "Chemical Weapons Production Facility":
(a) Means any equipment, as well as any building housing such equipment, that was designed, constructed or used at any time since 1 January 1946:
(i) As part of the stage in the production of chemicals ("final technological stage") where the material flows would contain, when the equipment is in operation:
(1) Any chemical listed in Schedule 1 in the Annex on Chemicals; or
(2) Any other chemical that has no use, above 1 tonne per year on the territory of a State Party or in any other place under the jurisdiction or control of a State Party, for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, but can be used for chemical weapons purposes; or
(ii) For filling chemical weapons, including, inter alia, the filling of chemicals listed in Schedule 1 into munitions, devices or bulk storage containers; the filling of chemicals into containers that form part of assembled binary munitions and devices or into chemical submunitions that form part of assembled unitary munitions and devices, and the loading of the containers and chemical submunitions into the respective munitions and devices;
(b) Does not mean:
(i) Any facility having a production capacity for synthesis of chemicals specified in subparagraph (a) (i) that is less than 1 tonne;
(ii) Any facility in which a chemical specified in subparagraph (a) (i) is or was produced as an unavoidable by-product of activities for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, provided that the chemical does not exceed 3 per cent of the total product and that the facility is subject to declaration and inspection under the Annex on Implementation and Verification (hereinafter referred to as "Verification Annex"); or
(iii) The single small-scale facility for production of chemicals listed in Schedule 1 for purposes not prohibited under this Convention as referred to in Part VI of the Verification Annex.
9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means: (emphasis added)
(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;
(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;
(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
10. "Production Capacity" means:
The annual quantitative potential for manufacturing a specific chemical based on the technological process actually used or, if the process is not yet operational, planned to be used at the relevant facility. It shall be deemed to be equal to the nameplate capacity or, if the nameplate capacity is not available, to the design capacity. The nameplate capacity is the product output under conditions optimized for maximum quantity for the production facility, as demonstrated by one or more test-runs. The design capacity is the corresponding theoretically calculated product output.
11. "Organization" means the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons established pursuant to Article VIII of this Convention.
12. For the purposes of Article VI:
(a) "Production" of a chemical means its formation through chemical reaction;
(b) "Processing" of a chemical means a physical process, such as formulation, extraction and purification, in which a chemical is not converted into another chemical;
(c) "Consumption" of a chemical means its conversion into another chemical via a chemical reaction.
[/b]
Last edited by Edi on 2003-03-13 07:12am, edited 1 time in total.
- Admiral Valdemar
- Outside Context Problem
- Posts: 31572
- Joined: 2002-07-04 07:17pm
- Location: UK
- generator_g1
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: 2003-01-19 10:17pm
- Location: Halfway between the gutter and the stars....
If the US did that, then they're no better than Saddam...anyway what's to stop those chemicals from affecting the civilian population?
My FLICKR page!
Remember, people, commas are your friends. Love them, embrace them, cherish them, and for crying out loud, USE them.
Remember, people, commas are your friends. Love them, embrace them, cherish them, and for crying out loud, USE them.
To be fair, they are non-lethal agents. The problem is that it's still prohibited, because when used on the battlefield there's a very good chance things will escalate. All you need is one panicked officer to report their being gassed, and it'll be "weapons free".generator_g1 wrote:If the US did that, then they're no better than Saddam...anyway what's to stop those chemicals from affecting the civilian population?
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
- generator_g1
- Jedi Master
- Posts: 1185
- Joined: 2003-01-19 10:17pm
- Location: Halfway between the gutter and the stars....
But what about that gas that the Russians used on that hostage-taking incident some months back? They claimed that gas was non-lethal but didn't some people die from inhalation of said gas?Vympel wrote:To be fair, they are non-lethal agents. The problem is that it's still prohibited, because when used on the battlefield there's a very good chance things will escalate. All you need is one panicked officer to report their being gassed, and it'll be "weapons free".generator_g1 wrote:If the US did that, then they're no better than Saddam...anyway what's to stop those chemicals from affecting the civilian population?
My FLICKR page!
Remember, people, commas are your friends. Love them, embrace them, cherish them, and for crying out loud, USE them.
Remember, people, commas are your friends. Love them, embrace them, cherish them, and for crying out loud, USE them.
It was non-lethal. The problem was the hostages were too weak and too much gas was pumped in (unavoidable- they had to be sure that every terrorist was unconcious, or the whole building would've been blown to smithereens and noone would've gotten out alive)- there was also the fuck-up at the hospitals after.generator_g1 wrote: But what about that gas that the Russians used on that hostage-taking incident some months back? They claimed that gas was non-lethal but didn't some people die from inhalation of said gas?
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
And if you really want to get legalistic about it, if the Russian gas was intended as riot control stuff or something similar, and if we consider that incident to be a domestic Russian law enforcement issue (instead of the far thornier issue it is), it's acceptable.
Edi
However, using even non-lethal chemicals like tear gas in an international conflict is expressly prohibited.Chemical Weapons Convention wrote:. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:
(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes;
(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons;
(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare;
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes. (emphasis added)
Edi
-
- Warlock
- Posts: 10285
- Joined: 2002-07-05 02:28am
- Location: Boston
- Contact:
I wont tell if you wont -shifty eyes-
This day is Fantastic!
Myers Briggs: ENTJ
Political Compass: -3/-6
DOOMer WoW
"I really hate it when the guy you were pegging as Mr. Worst Case starts saying, "Oh, I was wrong, it's going to be much worse." " - Adrian Laguna
*thinks back to Simpson's episode guest-starring Mel Gibson, with the evil dog at the end*Enforcer Talen wrote:I wont tell if you wont -shifty eyes-
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
This story was also run on March 2, 2003 by the Independent (UK paper).NF_Utvol wrote:I seriously doubt this. I doubt they would use anything other than tear gas, unless sufficiently provoked. And then it wouldn't be used on a civilian population.
Show us another source, and I might be inclined to believe it.
US Prepares to Use Toxic Gases in Iraq
by Geoffrey Lean and Severin Carrell
The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance. "Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be employed.
The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare. This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home: both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by UK police forces. The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf.
It is British policy not to allow troops to take part in operations where riot control agents are employed. But the US Defense Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has asked President Bush to authorize their use. Mr Bush, who has often spoken of "smoking out" the enemy, is understood to have agreed.
Internal Pentagon documents also show that the US is developing a range of calmative gases, also banned for battlefield use. Senior US Defense sources predict these could be used in Iraq by elite special forces units to take out command and control bunkers deep underground.
Rear Admiral Stephen Baker, a Navy commander in the last Gulf War who is now senior adviser to the Center for Defense Information in Washington, told The Independent on Sunday that US special forces had knock-out gases that can "neutralize" people. He added: "I would think that if they get a chance to use them, they will."
The Pentagon said last week that the decision to use riot control agents "is made by the commander in the field".
Mr Rumsfeld became the first senior figure on either side of the impending conflict to announce his wish to use chemical agents in a little-noticed comment to the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee on 5 February – the same day as Colin Powell's presentation of intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to the UN.
The Defense Secretary attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in international treaties on using the weapons in warfare. He specified that they could be used "where there are enemy troops in a cave [and] you know there are women and children in there with them". General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of using them against human shields.
The revelations leave the Bush administration open to charges of double standards at a time when it is making Iraq's suspected arsenal of chemical and biological weapons the casus belli. Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats, said last night: "This all adds to the confusion over how the war will be conducted. If the argument with Saddam Hussein is over disarming him of weapons of mass destruction, it is perverse of the US to push the boundaries of international chemical warfare conventions in order to subdue him."
Leading experts and Whitehall officials fear that using even pepper spray and CS gas would destroy the credibility of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoke Iraqi chemical retaliation and set a disastrous legal precedent. Professor Julian Perry Robinson, one of the world's foremost authorities on the convention, said: "Legally speaking, Iraq would be totally justified in releasing chemical weapons over the UK if the alliance uses them in Baghdad.
"When the war is over and these things have been used they will have been legitimized as a tool of war, and the principle of toxic weapons being banned will have gone. The difference between these weapons and nerve gas is simply one of structural chemistry."
The Ministry of Defense has warned the US that it will not allow British troops to be involved in operations where riot control agents are used, or to transport them to the battlefield, but Britain is even more concerned about the calmatives. This is shown by documents obtained by the Texas-based Sunshine Project under the US Freedom of Information Act. These reveal that the US is developing calmatives – including sedatives such as the benzodiazapines, diazepam, dexmeditomide and new drugs that affect the nervous system – even though it accepts that "the convention would prohibit the development of any chemically based agent that would even temporarily incapacitate a human being".
A special working group of the Federation of American Scientists concluded last month that using even the mildest of these weapons to incapacitate people would kill 9 per cent of them. It added: "Chemical incapacitating weapons are as likely as bullets to cause death."
The use of chemical weapons by US forces was explicitly banned by President Gerald Ford in 1975 after CS gas had been repeatedly used in Vietnam to smoke out enemy soldiers and then kill them as they ran away. Britain would be in a particularly sensitive position if the US used the weapons as it drafted the convention and is still seen internationally as its most important guardian.
The Foreign Office said: "All states parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention have undertaken not to use any toxic chemical or its precursor, including riot-control agents. This applies in any armed conflict."
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
Are you too fucking stupid to understand that any and all chemical weapons, whether mustard gas, tear gas, sarin, VX or even pepper spray are forbidden in international conflicts? Because that's what it is, an international conflict between Iraq and the US, and the question of whether the tear gas will be used on civilians or not is utterly irrelevant!NF_Utvol wrote:I seriously doubt this. I doubt they would use anything other than tear gas, unless sufficiently provoked. And then it wouldn't be used on a civilian population.
Show us another source, and I might be inclined to believe it.
As for the validity of the source, you have exactly what grounds to dismiss it out of hand? Point out the fucking errors in it and where they are wrong and I'll look up another one. If we want to know how reliable it is, maybe Stuart Mackey and other resident New Zealanders can tell us, but I see no reason at this point to doubt the authenticity of the information. If you can provide any, feel free to do so.
Edi
Agent orange was a completely untested fucked-up defollient.. The effects were designed for the Trees and the jungle. The problem was the Brain Cancer that it caused.. Personal story: In my uncle's unit in Nam 35% have the same type of brain cancer.. It all dependant on where you were deployed..
Sudden power is apt to be insolent, sudden liberty saucy; that behaves best which has grown gradually.
-
- Resident Redneck
- Posts: 4979
- Joined: 2002-09-10 08:01am
- Location: Around the corner
- Contact:
I find it hard to believe that, if this was true, only ONE source would report it. If it is, there will be other evidence. The US has no reason to use chemical weapons, nor reason to break these international treaties in this case.Edi wrote:Are you too fucking stupid to understand that any and all chemical weapons, whether mustard gas, tear gas, sarin, VX or even pepper spray are forbidden in international conflicts? Because that's what it is, an international conflict between Iraq and the US, and the question of whether the tear gas will be used on civilians or not is utterly irrelevant!NF_Utvol wrote:I seriously doubt this. I doubt they would use anything other than tear gas, unless sufficiently provoked. And then it wouldn't be used on a civilian population.
Show us another source, and I might be inclined to believe it.
As for the validity of the source, you have exactly what grounds to dismiss it out of hand? Point out the fucking errors in it and where they are wrong and I'll look up another one. If we want to know how reliable it is, maybe Stuart Mackey and other resident New Zealanders can tell us, but I see no reason at this point to doubt the authenticity of the information. If you can provide any, feel free to do so.
Edi
So quit flaming me if you cannot find a secondary source to back this up.
If you find information like this, and then don't take the time to CHECK THE SOURCE, then you are as gullible as they come. I don't care if this came from CNN, check your source by finding another source to back it up THEN start making the accusations.
<EDIT:> I just read all the way back up and noticed that there was a secondary source. I still find it difficult to believe that the US would use chemical weapons. Is that not half the point of the war? To get these weapons out of Saddams hand to prevent their usage?
Yup, this stuff is still killing people in Vietnam and the U.S. to this day. Are the U.S. victims getting compensation for this yet (I vaguely remember some controversy over this several years ago)?theski wrote:Agent orange was a completely untested fucked-up defollient.. The effects were designed for the Trees and the jungle. The problem was the Brain Cancer that it caused..
It was "intended" as a defoliant, but it contains known toxins and would be classified a chemical weapon for its harmful effects. Feigning ignorance as to its effects, or its indented use is no defence against this charge. I'm sure the U.S. gov't would disagree however.
- MKSheppard
- Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
- Posts: 29842
- Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Re: US to Use Chemical Weapons in Iraq War?
Edi wrote:So, the US intends to go to war over weapons of mass of destruction, in order to disarm Iraq and to destroy its stocks of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, while intending to use the very same weapons in hostilities as explicitly prohibited by the Chemical Weapons convention (see here) it is party to. Talk about hypocrisy...
Hey moron, those are RIOT CONTROL agents, designed to induce watery
eyes and other unpleasant side effects. Or would you rather have the
1st Armored use 25mm autocannons to quell a demonstration against us?
Guess the US is fucked no matter what we do.
If we take steps to rebuild Iraq by awarding contracts for reconstruction, it's called war-profiteering...
If we ship riot control agents to the area to prepare for the possibility of
having to deal with unruly crowds during our occupation of Iraq, it's called
using chemical weapons...
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
I agree with you fully. Bush would be a complete idiot to allow their use. If this is true (shipping these weapons to the Gulf), I don't see how Blair could support the war, I don't see how any other country could support this war, it would be political suicide.NF_Utvol wrote: I still find it difficult to believe that the US would use chemical weapons. Is that not half the point of the war? To get these weapons out of Saddams hand to prevent their usage?
However I *can* see Bush actually doing this. All he needs is a bunch of CNN news stories about how these "non lethal" weapons are going to save American and Iraqi civilian lives, about how effective they were in Russia. Badda boom badda bing: These chemical weaponsa are OK, and anyone who compares them to nerve gas is silly.
Another problem is the development of the "bunker" buster nuke. If the U.S. has actually developed or ever actually develops this weapon, it completely turns "We are against nuclear proliferation" into "Nukes are OK, just not for you."
- Enlightenment
- Moderator Emeritus
- Posts: 2404
- Joined: 2002-07-04 07:38pm
- Location: Annoying nationalist twits since 1990
Re: US to Use Chemical Weapons in Iraq War?
Hey moron, it's a violation of the chemical weapons conventions to use riot control agents in war. What part of this is too hard for you to understand?MKSheppard wrote:Hey moron, those are RIOT CONTROL agents, designed to induce watery eyes and other unpleasant side effects. Or would you rather have the 1st Armored use 25mm autocannons to quell a demonstration against us?
Hey moron, if you start handing out rebuilding contracts to the friends of Shrub, it's profiteering.If we take steps to rebuild Iraq by awarding contracts for reconstruction, it's called war-profiteering...
It's not my place in life to make people happy. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to watch me slaughter cows you hold sacred. Don't talk to me unless you're prepared to have your basic assumptions challenged. If you want bunnies in light, talk to someone else.
- MKSheppard
- Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
- Posts: 29842
- Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Re: US to Use Chemical Weapons in Iraq War?
Funny, we used them all the time in Vietnam, by pumping them intoEnlightenment wrote: Hey moron, it's a violation of the chemical weapons conventions to use riot control agents in war. What part of this is too hard for you to understand?
the Chu-Chi tunnels, along with Gasoline.
Wow, let's see, Haliburton is one of only FIVE companies in the USHey moron, if you start handing out rebuilding contracts to the friends of Shrub, it's profiteering.
with the kind of experience we're gonna need to rebuild the Iraqi
oil industry after saddam wrecks it.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Re: US to Use Chemical Weapons in Iraq War?
The alternate interpretation of this event is that the U.S. was violating the convention at this time as well.MKSheppard wrote: Funny, we used them all the time in Vietnam, by pumping them into
the Chu-Chi tunnels, along with Gasoline.
- MKSheppard
- Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
- Posts: 29842
- Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm
Re: US to Use Chemical Weapons in Iraq War?
Ok then, here's a loaded .45. You can go into that tunnel to root the VCZoink wrote: The alternate interpretation of this event is that the U.S. was violating the convention at this time as well.
out, or we could just pump tear gas into it and drive them out...
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
- Sea Skimmer
- Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
- Posts: 37390
- Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
- Location: Passchendaele City, HAB
Bullshit detected. The US signed Chemical Weapons Convention under the reservation that it did consider non lethal agents to be banned and that the right to retaliation remained.
Last edited by Sea Skimmer on 2003-03-13 01:38pm, edited 2 times in total.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956