Just so I'm clear on the whole "moral obscenity" thing...

[Orrex]

High-pressure aerosolized tear gas blasted at close range into the faces of non-violent protesters does not count as a use of chemical weapons?

Generally non-fatal, I grant, but the PTB have ruled that this is okey dokey, right?



Just checking.

[tk2kewl]

1. that is know as a "moral imperative"

[MotherPetrie]

2. K&R

[jberryhill]

3. Perhaps you might refer to the Chemical Weapons Convention

Article II, Section 3 "Riot Control Agent".

If we are all going to engage in our own lexicography, you could say that using a fire hose to blast water into a crowd is a "chemical weapon". There is no question that water is a chemical, and a fire hose used in that manner is a weapon.

Gunpowder is also a chemical composition (saltpeter, sulfur and carbon), so an ordinary firearm round is a "chemical weapon" if you'd like.

Under the CWC, each nation must declare its RCA's used for law enforcement purposes to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

I'm not aware of any weapon which is not made of chemicals. A steel sword is primarily made of iron and carbon.

[Orrex]

4. Wasn't aware of that convention--thanks

And I see your point with the ol' reducto absurdo. Have you contacted Sec. Kerry to explain to him that a wooden club is also a chemical weapon?


I think that it's safe to say that a "chemical weapon" is a weapon whose primary impact upon its target is chemical rather than physical in nature. A weapon imparting kinetic energy is different in this regard from a weapon that dispenses a caustic agent with the intent and effect of oxidizing organic tissue, for example.

[jberryhill]

5. Interestingly....

Even "riot control agents" are prohibited from use in warfare. But, yeah, the idea seems to be to get at the "point" of the weapon being its chemical effect per se. So, I guess napalm is an "incendiary" as is the fuel in flamethrowers.

The convention is here:

http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-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.)

...

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.

[Orrex]

8. Love the pic!

Have to admit I'm a little creeped out at the way they lawyer the hell out of these things like a cell phone contract. I suppose we'll have to embed an attorney in each unit that might use or encounter "chemical weapons" or "toxic chemicals."

[jberryhill]

10. It's for the reasons we discussed, though...

Every weapon is a "chemical weapon" in some sense. But nobody is going to sign on to a Security Council resolution authorizing the rest of the world to blow the shit out of your country for lighting a smoke grenade.

At the end, however, are helpful lists of things that are definitely chemical weapons.

[cali]

6. No, it does not and it should not.

ridiculous comparison and I think that incident was disgusting. No one died. No one suffered permanent damage.

[Orrex]

7. Easy there, fireball. Just establishing the boundaries

[paulk]

9. for myself

I'm still trying to understand the "moral" difference between using poison gas and, for instance, phosphorus shells (Fallujah), depleted uranium shells (Iraq), and even standard military ordinance that's designed to tumble (causing more grievous injury) on impact.

[jberryhill]

11. WWI

Things that burn, blow up or produce impact damage don't have the same sort of gut feel as opening a can of Raid and spraying it on people.

Dead and injured is dead and injured, it's true, but the experience of WWI led people to draw a distinction which, in absolute terms, may be one without a difference at some coldly rational level.

Not everything about humans is logical, and emotions are not categorically "invalid".