US to Use Chemical Weapons in Iraq War?

[Captain tycho]

So, I guess using pepperspray would violate that treaty?

Yes.

Why do you believe this to be a big deal? In combat, if you're close enough to use pepper spray on someone you're close enough to bayonet them let alone shoot them.

It's the concept that appalls me.
There's a big difference between harmless tear gases and deadly nerve gases like sarin and VX...believe me I've experienced VX firsthand and it's effects. Nasty.

[Stuart Mackey]

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.

The Herald is one of New Zealands oldest and most reputable news papers, it does not print tabloid rubbish. You can rest assured as to the validity of the Heralds reporting.

[Stuart Mackey]

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..

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)?

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.

It is also still killing Veitnam vets in NZ and Aussie.

[Stuart Mackey]

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 *SNIP*

I throw a BS flag on that. I'm an officer in the Army, and furthermore, I spent four years as a Chemical Officer. The US Military does not use chemical weapons in warfare, and if someone is trying to redefine another weapon system as a "chemical weapon," then they're talking out of their fourth point of contact. US policy is first-strike of nuclear weapons, and it is to retaliate with nuclear weapons for any form of chemical or biological weapons attack against US forces.

Any moron attempting to compare riot-control or incapcitating agents with deadly chemical agents such as VX, VG, blister, or blood agents is either woefully misinformed or lying through their teeth.

From that treaty

5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

From the article

"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.

[MKSheppard]

The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf.[/i]

So fucking what?

Reminds me of the time the germans sank a cargo ship full of Mustard
gas in Anzio harbor....oooh now that was a big mess.

[Stuart Mackey]

And the world cant do shit about it. I vote we appoint a sadistic gorilla as our new God Emperor and give Sheppard command of the nations nuclear forces.

My first action shall be to reduce Quebec to a radioactive Slag heap

I dont think many would disagree either

[Stuart Mackey]

The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf.[/i]

So fucking what?

Reminds me of the time the germans sank a cargo ship full of Mustard
gas in Anzio harbor....oooh now that was a big mess.

Also from the article

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".

from the treaty

5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare.

[phongn]

As Sea Skimmer has noted, when we signed the treaty we retained the right to retaliation - this is probably what they're talking about.

[Stuart Mackey]

As Sea Skimmer has noted, when we signed the treaty we retained the right to retaliation - this is probably what they're talking about.

Most nation would retaliate, and I supect you are probably right. But I suspect that they would happily use them as needed, whether the enemy had done so first or not. Certainly this US administration seems to be moving away from certain international conventions.

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".

[jegs2]

The speculation held up by the article that Macky is quoting is that those calmative gases would be used on the battlefield. As I said, release authority for any form of chemical agent is held at the four-star level, and usually only by Combatant Commaders. No commander has released that authority to subordinate commanders, nor have they issued orders for the use of such agents since the disaster of "Agent Orange" over thirty years ago. Read the FM's involving US Military combat, and you will find no reference to use of any form of chemical agent -- it's not even in US warfighting doctrine, and the US Military trains as it fights. The only use such agents could possibly find is in a SASO or MOUT environment after hostilities have officially ceased, keeping in mind that doctrine for both MOUT and SASO is under constant development and revision. Even then, there is no precident for CINC's (now called Combatant Commanders -- those four-stars of which I spoke) releasing authority for use of any form of chemical agent. In the past, MSC commanders have ordered their soldiers to open fire with their issued weapons, rather than release authority to use RCA or any form of agent that might be construed as a chemical agent. Even the most restrictive ROE allows a soldier to use deadly force if his life or property of the US government is in imminent danger. Let me make this plain -- YOU WON'T SEE US FORCES USING CHEMICAL AGENTS ON ENEMY FORCES. Clear enough?

[Knife]

Knife, the treaty as it stands right now is not ridiculous. You are in the military yourself, so don't try to pull bullshit about how it would be applied in an urban warfare situation. You've got troops going in to dig the enemy out, and let's say they use CS to screen their advance, dumping it into buildings before going in. The CS will temporarily incapacitate/hinder the targets, and because you need to advance quickly and in all likelihood have no manpower to just take them prisoner, they'll all get a bullet to the head, maybe excepting some individuals who are deemed more valuable as prisoners (e.g. officers). And in that situation, if I was the defender, knowing I was just gonna have a bullet put to my head without even the possibility to defend myself, and had harder stuff available (e.g. the deadlier gases), I'd damn well use them on you if I could do it without being exposed myself. I'm dead anyway, so why the fuck not?

First off, it is ridiculous if it prohibits the use of non-lethal weapons from use in the 'new battlefield' that people have been touting for the last decade. Second, I have been out of the Corps for as long as I had been in. I am not currently active duty. And Thirdly, I am disturbed at your prospect that US troops would shoot POW's or potential POW's because we wouldn't need them or they are not valuable enough. I was an MOUNT instructor and US tactics on urban terrain follow the same rules of POW's as any other battle scene. It is ILLEGAL to shoot POW's and/or enemy troops trying to surrender. Anyone doing this will spend the rest of his/her life making big rocks into little rocks.

And this is why riot control agents in combat operations are prohibited, to prevent escalation. Take a look at the treaty. I have absolutely no problem with using CS and other riot control agents in a police action, because it is different from warfare. Obviously you can use the stuff for riot control in e.g. an occupied zone (which, assuming war, where the US will emerge winner, will be the whole of Iraq) that you have under your control, because it is not a combat operation to suppress an unruly mob, while it is a combat operation to drive an enemy army from their position.

And again I say that comparing RC and other NON-leathal weapon systems that have been touted for a decade as the new way to fight MOUNT and police actions, to traditional NBC weapons is ridiculous. The use of RC gernades is not standard tactics (as Jegs has mentioned) but to say that it is comparable to nerve agent is dumb and so is the treaty to equate them.

Take a look at the sections of the convention I pasted into the opening post, it specifically exempts the use of riot control agents in domestic law enforcement from the provisions of the treaty. Do you have a horse or something you can feed all that straw to or are you going to make a pallet out of it?

I have yet to dispute the valitity of the treaty and I did read it at the begining of the thread, I am saying that the treaty is flawed and is dumb to equate CS and pepperspry to other conventional NBC weapons. I brought up the "strawman" to point out the stupidity of comparing CS or pepperspry to nerve agent, blood agent, and other niffty shit.

Now, if those agents were shipped to the Gulf in anticipation of the post-war occupation and are not intended for combat use, I have no problem, and neither should anyone else, and the CWC won't be violated. This issue is not overly complex like some people here would like to make it seem. It is exceptionally clear-cut

OK, wasn't trying to make it difficult. Just thing the premice is dumb.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yep, a good christian empire under the loving guidance of high priest Bush.

And the world cant do shit about it. I vote we appoint a sadistic gorilla as our new God Emperor and give Sheppard command of the nations nuclear forces.

Do you have an aversion to reality and the general well being of the human race?

If people want to continue a thread based on bullshit, I'm going to keep it up along with them.

[Enlightenment]

Let me make this plain -- YOU WON'T SEE US FORCES USING CHEMICAL AGENTS ON ENEMY FORCES. Clear enough?

Speaking of lethal gasses, of course we won't see them. If the US uses lethal gas it'll be blamed on Saddam and any reporter who tries to say otherwise will be 'accidentally' shot. See the 'freedom of information' thread currently in SLAM.

Speaking of less-than-lethal gasses, why bother shipping them in-theater unless there is an intent--and specific delegation of release authority--to use them? It's not as if less-than-lethal agents can be used in retaliation for Iraqi chemical attacks: less-than-lethal agents are first use weapons.

[Beowulf]

Speaking of less-than-lethal gasses, why bother shipping them in-theater unless there is an intent--and specific delegation of release authority--to use them? It's not as if less-than-lethal agents can be used in retaliation for Iraqi chemical attacks: less-than-lethal agents are first use weapons.

Maybe because they might have to perform MOUT operations in Baghdad after the war is over. Or would you rather they just nuke the place and leave?

[Enlightenment]

Maybe because they might have to perform MOUT operations in Baghdad after the war is over. Or would you rather they just nuke the place and leave?

Yes, and? That's intent to use right there.

[Axis Kast]

Let me put it in very simple terms.

Less-than-lethal agents are being shipping into the Gulf Theater.

Their use has been speculated in one or more scenarios, probably related to post-war occupation or peacekeeping duties.

The deployment of less-than-lethal agents will spare American soldiers from having to shoot at or potentially be shot at by enemy combatants and soldiers refusing to lay down their arms.

If the United Nations cannot stomach that because they are concerned about their moral conundrums? Who cares? Certainly not I. They want to crack down on possible violations? France. Last January. With the illegal munitions and maintenance components. Sold to Saddam Hussein.

[Enlightenment]

Their use has been speculated in one or more scenarios, probably related to post-war occupation or peacekeeping duties.

AFIAK the use of riot gases on occupied civilians is legal. I for one don't see a problem with this. The position does, however, contradict jegs' blanket assertion that US forces will not use gas, period.

The deployment of less-than-lethal agents will spare American soldiers from having to shoot at or potentially be shot at by enemy combatants and soldiers refusing to lay down their arms.

That's a war use and therefore illegal. Open that pandora's box and the US won't have a leg to stand on when it next bitches about someone else having chemical weapons stocks.

[jegs2]

Maybe because they might have to perform MOUT operations in Baghdad after the war is over. Or would you rather they just nuke the place and leave?

If RC agents are indeed being shipped to the Iraqi Theater, I'd be surprised if MSC commaders are given permission to use them. Such permission has been denied to MSC commanders as far back as I can remember -- much to the consternation of battalion commanders who had to order their comany commanders to open fire on civilians with deadly force (read: Somolia, where incapacitating agents may have spared countless Somali lives, instead of the bullets that ripped them apart -- quite humane, eh?). If such agents are used, my belief is that they'd be used in SASO operations, and those operations would likely have tons of civilian news reporters dragged along to report and record everything that took place, IOT prevent looney charges of chemical weapons attacks by US forces.

[Enlightenment]

If RC agents are indeed being shipped to the Iraqi Theater, I'd be surprised if MSC commaders are given permission to use them.

Again, why ship them if there's no on-the-ground authority for their use? Shipping nukes or lethal chemical agents without granting authority for their use makes some sense as they're retaliatory weapons that might need to be loosed in a hurry should Iraq use chemical or biological agents against US forces. This argument, however, does not apply to less lethal agents as they have no deterrant or retaliatory properties. If less lethals are being shipped then someone very likely has permission to use them.

[Axis Kast]

AFIAK the use of riot gases on occupied civilians is legal. I for one don't see a problem with this. The position does, however, contradict jegs' blanket assertion that US forces will not use gas, period.

Illegal according to the United Nations? Oh no!

Jegs’ blanket assessment still stands. I certainly did not deny that the gasses wouldn’t be used – merely postulated that they might be.

That's a war use and therefore illegal. Open that pandora's box and the US won't have a leg to stand on when it next bitches about someone else having chemical weapons stocks.

We’re talking about subduing rioting prisoners or pumping gas into strongpoints. Again, if you want to call it illegal, I’ll just call it “the best (most humane) solution for all.” While I agree that using gas too heavily might prompt others to deploy it against us with greater enthusiasm – and should as a result of that be controlled -, I seriously doubt we'll reach that point even if it is deployed.

[Sea Skimmer]

If RC agents are indeed being shipped to the Iraqi Theater, I'd be surprised if MSC commaders are given permission to use them.

Again, why ship them if there's no on-the-ground authority for their use? Shipping nukes or lethal chemical agents without granting authority for their use makes some sense as they're retaliatory weapons that might need to be loosed in a hurry should Iraq use chemical or biological agents against US forces. This argument, however, does not apply to less lethal agents as they have no deterrant or retaliatory properties. If less lethals are being shipped then someone very likely has permission to use them.

The US is not shipping lethal agents. The biggest reason for that is simply that there are none left in the inventory that could be used. What lethal weapons the US has left are all expired and wouldn't be very effective and the very few which are weaponized, IE in bombs, have degraded to the point that they could not safely be handled.

All of them had to be moved to sealed bunkers a while back because they reached the point where leaks where am major risk. Though overall the majority of the US's chemical weapons have always been kept in large 1000-gallon tanks.

I can't recall exactly what the current destruction status is, but I believe most if not all of the weaponized chemicals have been destroyed and it's mostly the large storage tanks that are being dealt with now.

[Enlightenment]

Illegal according to the United Nations? Oh no!

Reread what I wrote. Subduing occupied populations with riot gases is legal.

We’re talking about subduing rioting prisoners

Are we?

pumping gas into strongpoints.

War use. Illegal under the chemical weapons convention.

Oh, and while I'm at it, the CWC is a free-standing convention along the lines of the Geneva and Hague conventions on the laws of war. It has little if anything to do with the UN.

[Knife]

The US is not shipping lethal agents. The biggest reason for that is simply that there are none left in the inventory that could be used. What lethal weapons the US has left are all expired and wouldn't be very effective and the very few which are weaponized, IE in bombs, have degraded to the point that they could not safely be handled.

All of them had to be moved to sealed bunkers a while back because they reached the point where leaks where am major risk. Though overall the majority of the US's chemical weapons have always been kept in large 1000-gallon tanks.

I can't recall exactly what the current destruction status is, but I believe most if not all of the weaponized chemicals have been destroyed and it's mostly the large storage tanks that are being dealt with now.

Alot of it is at a destruction plant in Toole, Ut. The burn plant has been chugging along for years, slowly destroying the shit. It is techniclly part of Dougway proving grounds and is storing alot of the shit outside in 'containers'. The plant is something like, 20 miles from Salt Lake City, one of the largest population centers in Utah. I like that they are being destroyed, but I don't really like its location.

[Sea Skimmer]

War use. Illegal under the chemical weapons convention.

Oh, and while I'm at it, the CWC is a free-standing convention along the lines of the Geneva and Hague conventions on the laws of war. It has little if anything to do with the UN.

When it signed the US stated it did not consider riot agents to be banned and was only agreeing to destroy lethal agents. The CWC was and is UN sponsored.

[Sea Skimmer]

Alot of it is at a destruction plant in Toole, Ut. The burn plant has been chugging along for years, slowly destroying the shit. It is techniclly part of Dougway proving grounds and is storing alot of the shit outside in 'containers'. The plant is something like, 20 miles from Salt Lake City, one of the largest population centers in Utah. I like that they are being destroyed, but I don't really like its location.

Its being destroyed at several plants, IIRC, every one of the nine remaining stockpile sites has a operating incinerator now, the condition of the weapons makes moving them anywhere a poor idea. All of the US's remaining munitions are within the lower 48 or on the Johnston Atoll which took care of US overseas stocks in the early 1990's. One Sealift Command ship got fitted out with an overpressure system to haul them there.