StarDestroyer.Net BBS

MKSheppard wrote:

Enlightenment 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?

Funny, we used them all the time in Vietnam, by pumping them into
the Chu-Chi tunnels, along with Gasoline.

The US signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1997; it did not apply during Vietnam.

Hey moron, if you start handing out rebuilding contracts to the friends of Shrub, it's profiteering.

Wow, let's see, Haliburton is one of only FIVE companies in the US
with the kind of experience we're gonna need to rebuild the Iraqi
oil industry after saddam wrecks it.

IIRC, that particular company owned by Halliburton is actually very well qualified for the job and continues to do contracts for the previous administration elsewhere in the world.

What Sea Skimmer is saying is that we'll use non-lethal chemical weapons in retaliation for the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqis. Even if they'd only be used in retaliation, you do have to prepare to use them first. What's the big deal there?

I find this whole thing disturbing. If the US is in a treaty currently that forbids its military to use pepperspry and CS because it is considered Chemical Warfare, we need to pull out of that dumbass treaty. The US military has been for years, slowly working in non-lethal weapons into its arsenal to use in police actions and urban warfare. To say that CS (which I have extensive training time with) and pepperspry can even remotely equate to mustard gas, nerve agent, skin agent, or any other chemical weapon is pure bullshit.

There is no moral hypocracy in using CS gernades for screening units just as there is no moral hypocracy in using smoke gernades. CS has no ill effect on a person except for dumping the entire contents of your sinus out of your nose. And for Christs sake, pepperspry? Do we start charging civilians that use pepperspry against muggers and rapists, as warcriminals because they are using pepperspry to defend themselves? This whole thing is riddiculous and if we signed this treaty, we need to break it, burn it, and make another one that is not ridiculous.

Knife has it right.

Too many people are equating our actions on the world stage to some kind of moral scale. That’s utter nonsense. We’ll do what we have to do to get the job done no matter how underhanded. Any road – so long as it leads to victory with the least bit of trouble – is a good road.

As has been said before, pepper spray and non-lethal chemicals can do wonders to prevent unnecessary deaths in combat. Whether or not the United Nations finds these methods distasteful – I care not; we’re talking about the same people who are taking my security as an American citizen and saying, “To hell with it!” -, they are clearly legitimate. Mace is a useful tool in subduing an enemy combatant. At least he won’t fire his gun and cause more problems – ie, potential death – to both sides.

The worst problem here is the concept of misunderstanding. We’ll have to use these weapons carefully or risk opening a Pandora’s box of retaliatory attacks. Fortunately, I assume that while we are readying gas; we’ll use only pepper spray and then in isolated situations.

And if you think the rest of the world doesn't throw treaties to the wind, you've got it all wrong. Try France. In January. With the maintenance components. Their victim? Iraq.

The NZ Herald is major national newspaper and has a fair reputation for reliability.

Knife wrote:I find this whole thing disturbing. If the US is in a treaty currently that forbids its military to use pepperspry and CS because it is considered Chemical Warfare, we need to pull out of that dumbass treaty. The US military has been for years, slowly working in non-lethal weapons into its arsenal to use in police actions and urban warfare. To say that CS (which I have extensive training time with) and pepperspry can even remotely equate to mustard gas, nerve agent, skin agent, or any other chemical weapon is pure bullshit.

There is no moral hypocracy in using CS gernades for screening units just as there is no moral hypocracy in using smoke gernades. CS has no ill effect on a person except for dumping the entire contents of your sinus out of your nose. And for Christs sake, pepperspry? Do we start charging civilians that use pepperspry against muggers and rapists, as warcriminals because they are using pepperspry to defend themselves? This whole thing is riddiculous and if we signed this treaty, we need to break it, burn it, and make another one that is not ridiculous.

It wasn't ratified as I recall, meaning its not binding in the first place. However I see no reason to pull out, since the intention to except riot agents was made clear before the signing. Its moron reporters who are the problume, once again.

Or if the world would prefer, the US can pull out, stop destroying its few remaining chemical weapons stocks, nuke Iraq and north Korea, declare its self an Empire and proceed to conquer the world as they claim where doing. I really don't give a shit.

Sea Skimmer wrote:Or if the world would prefer, the US can pull out, stop destroying its few remaining chemical weapons stocks, nuke Iraq and north Korea, declare its self an Empire and proceed to conquer the world as they claim where doing. I really don't give a shit.

It's not as if we aren't an empire in all but name already...

Beowulf wrote:It's not as if we aren't an empire in all but name already...

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

Spyder wrote:

Beowulf wrote:It's not as if we aren't an empire in all but name already...

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

The US is more Protestant than Catholic so he'll have to be a Reverand or
Pastor.

Spyder wrote:

Beowulf wrote:It's not as if we aren't an empire in all but name already...

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.

Sea Skimmer wrote:

Spyder wrote:

Beowulf wrote:It's not as if we aren't an empire in all but name already...

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?

i have recollection of some treaty, involving a french city or something, that banned chemical and biological weapons.

somewith with versailles..

Spyder wrote:

Beowulf wrote:It's not as if we aren't an empire in all but name already...

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

god forbid.

Knife wrote:I find this whole thing disturbing. If the US is in a treaty currently that forbids its military to use pepperspry and CS because it is considered Chemical Warfare, we need to pull out of that dumbass treaty. The US military has been for years, slowly working in non-lethal weapons into its arsenal to use in police actions and urban warfare. To say that CS (which I have extensive training time with) and pepperspry can even remotely equate to mustard gas, nerve agent, skin agent, or any other chemical weapon is pure bullshit.

There is no moral hypocracy in using CS gernades for screening units just as there is no moral hypocracy in using smoke gernades.

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?

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.

Knife wrote:CS has no ill effect on a person except for dumping the entire contents of your sinus out of your nose. And for Christs sake, pepperspry? Do we start charging civilians that use pepperspry against muggers and rapists, as warcriminals because they are using pepperspry to defend themselves? This whole thing is riddiculous and if we signed this treaty, we need to break it, burn it, and make another one that is not ridiculous.

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?

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.

Edi

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 *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.

I'll admit to the difference in their natures, yes, I'd be a fool not to, but it still doesn't remove the fact that using the RC agents will violate the CWC, and doing that would be a bad precedent.

Edi

jegs2 wrote: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.

The chemical weapons convention, quoted upthread, makes no distinction between lethal and less-than-lethal agents. Legally speaking, using CS in combat is just as illegal as using VX.

Edi wrote:I'll admit to the difference in their natures, yes, I'd be a fool not to, but it still doesn't remove the fact that using the RC agents will violate the CWC, and doing that would be a bad precedent.

Edi

Despite the article and its source, I have no knowlege of any plans to employ any form of chemical agent on the battlefield. Release authority for even riot control agents rests at the four-star level. It is actually easier for a company commander to order his troops to open fire with live ammunition on hostile crowd than it is to obtain authority to use riot control agents, thanks to the vagueness of that treaty.

jegs2 wrote:Despite the article and its source, I have no knowlege of any plans to employ any form of chemical agent on the battlefield. Release authority for even riot control agents rests at the four-star level. It is actually easier for a company commander to order his troops to open fire with live ammunition on hostile crowd than it is to obtain authority to use riot control agents, thanks to the vagueness of that treaty.

Which means that it would be safe to assume that any RCAs deployed to the Gulf would have been in anticipation of post-war occupation police actions and not for combat purposes?

It makes a lot of sense that way, and the NZ Herald article had me wondering about who would have been stupid enough to cause another potential PR disaster for the US. Glad to hear from someone who knows the issue that the fears raised by the article are largely unfounded.

Edi

Edi wrote:Which means that it would be safe to assume that any RCAs deployed to the Gulf would have been in anticipation of post-war occupation police actions and not for combat purposes?

It makes a lot of sense that way, and the NZ Herald article had me wondering about who would have been stupid enough to cause another potential PR disaster for the US. Glad to hear from someone who knows the issue that the fears raised by the article are largely unfounded.

Edi

That's a safe bet. Our job is to kill the enemy, and we're pretty good at doing that without the need for chemical agents. However, SASO (Stability and Security Operations) in a post-war area could call for the use of RCA's, but looking at the track record, it would be an uphill fight for any commander to gain authorization to use them.

Edi wrote:I'll admit to the difference in their natures, yes, I'd be a fool not to, but it still doesn't remove the fact that using the RC agents will violate the CWC, and doing that would be a bad precedent.

Edi

So, I guess using pepperspray would violate that treaty?

In combat between armed forces of two different nations, yes. By private citizens to defend themselves, no, because that falls under domestic law enforcement, where RCAs are allowed.

Edi

Captain tycho wrote: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.

Sea Skimmer wrote: Or if the world would prefer, the US can pull out, stop destroying its few remaining chemical weapons stocks, nuke Iraq and north Korea, declare its self an Empire and proceed to conquer the world as they claim where doing. I really don't give a shit.

Now THAT I'd prefer

Sea Skimmer wrote: 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