US to Use Chemical Weapons in Iraq War?

[Enlightenment]

When it signed the US stated it did not consider riot agents to be banned

I am aware of that. It is, however, rather hard for the US to muster any moral authority when chiding other states for failing to follow convention and treaty requirements on WMD when it cherrypicks which laws it will follow itself.

The CWC was and is UN sponsored.

from OPCW.org:

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is the international organisation that was established in 1997 by the countries that have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to make sure that the Convention works effectively and achieves its purpose.

[...]

The OPCW is an independent international organisation, working in the interests of its Member States. The OPCW cooperates with the United Nations and has a staff of about 500 people, representing around 66 nationalities. Like the United Nations, the six official languages of the OPCW are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.

[Sea Skimmer]

from OPCW.org:

The Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is the international organisation that was established in 1997 by the countries that have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) to make sure that the Convention works effectively and achieves its purpose.

[...]

The OPCW is an independent international organisation, working in the interests of its Member States. The OPCW cooperates with the United Nations and has a staff of about 500 people, representing around 66 nationalities. Like the United Nations, the six official languages of the OPCW are Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, and Spanish.

How does that change anything? Its says right in that text that the OPCW "was Established in 1997 by the countries that have joined the Chemical Weapons Convention"

The fact that the treaty spawned an independent organization doesn't say anything about the fact that the treaty was UN.

[jegs2]

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.

Any RC agents would be used in a post-hostilites Iraq in SASO, if they were used at all. The deterrent the US has to a chemical attack on its troops is nuclear weapons -- that is US policy -- we retaliate with nuclear weapons. I imagine that we have already pre-selected appropriate Iraqi targets for nuclear hellfire. No chemical agents will be used against Iraqi forces. No one in the US military is trained to employ chemical agents on a battlefied, and it isn't in US warfighting doctrine. One fact that both our friends and enemies know is that the US military trains as it fights.

[Axis Kast]

Are we?

For the most part, yes. Unless you plan to walk up to Iraqi troops and spray them with mace, hoping you won’t get hit. The other gas is already confirmed as too dangerous for mass use.

War use. Illegal under the chemical weapons convention.

War use, yes. But no in the way you think. We’re talking about strongpoints surrounded and isolated. The likelihood of our use of chemicals in that instance would not be a direct provocation. And again, no matter how you want to look at this, the use of non-lethal agents is a better alternative than blowing the bunker sky high and risking more lives on both sides.

[Stuart Mackey]

snipYOU WON'T SEE US FORCES USING CHEMICAL AGENTS ON ENEMY FORCES. Clear enough?

Rumsfeld:

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".


Jegs, I realise that you training and current doctrine do not delve into chem warfare, however doctrine can change and it would appear that there is some intent to use them, in some situations. Such a change like this can only come from the political level.