Topic awaiting preservation: American chemical/biological weapons programmes (Page 1 of 1)

As we discussed here the Russians seem to have used some kind of 'non-lethal' gas to end the Moscow theatre seige:
http://www.ozoneasylum.com/Forum17/HTML/000571.html

However, it also looks like the US (along with, as always it seems, the UK) have been experimenting with these kind of things (and other agents) which either exploits loopholes in chemical weapons treaties, stretches the meaning of these treaties to breaking point or runs right through them (expert opinion differs):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,821306,00.html

It seems that if we are going to go to war over people breaking the treaties and try and create a safer world for everyone that we should make sure our hands are clean and that we are setting the kind of example that we'd expect other people to follow.

___________________
Emps

FAQs: Emperor

We are the king of treaty breakers.

Although we are America... and at least lately we're not signing anything we know we'd break anyway.

This is why we won't sign the landmine treaty or the Kyoto (however it's spelled) treaty. Unlike other countries that will sign a treaty and break it the next day, we've decided to take the higher road and not lie.
Although the ever watchful eye of our elite media probably has added to that position.

All those countries who signed the landmine treaty... the minute they feel they might be attacked by a neighboring country.... land mines will be planted on any eventual path of an army.

Both the US and the USSR signed a crapload of treaties they both knew they would break during and after the cold war, but the mentality was "Hey it's worth a shot, and if worse comes to worse we got something to use against them in a PR war."

Basically we must defend ourselves and we won't voluntarily cripple our ability to do so.

I do not see non-lethal weapons as that bad.. After all, it's better than bullets. It's even better than rubber bullets, tear gas, fighting, a billy club, pepper spray, etc. However, it is vitally important to me that they do not injure and they do not kill. If it's just a "knock-out" gas, I don't see the harm. I think that most people would practically be "praising" the Russians rather than being disappointed in them, if the gas didn't damage or kill anyone. They would have captured all of the terrorists for prosecution and saved all of the captives. So, I don't oppose the creation of such non-lethal weapons... As long as we assure that they truly aren't lethal or harmful.

To me, it's rather sad that the American President is practically backing the use of nuclear weapons. He was basically been trying to make a clause which says that they can use it whenever they feel like it. I don't know how far that got along or if it was passed. Does anyone have more information?
I don't really think that they should be used, ever. I think we will hopefully have better alternatives. However, those are just "hopefully" and "should"... I think that their use should be justified only if certain extreme circumstances are met...
"The loss of life, the amount of physical suffering, and the political repercussions caused by their use must be far outweighed by the amount of loss of life, physical suffering, and political repercussions that would be the extremely realistic and imminent possibilities caused by what would result if such action is not taken. Consideration must be given to the placement and power of such a weapon in order to best avoid loss of life and suffering while achieving the intended goal. They cannot be used if diplomacy, soldiers, cruise missiles, and other technology could not be used to gain the same results or more desirable ones without regard to the amount of money required. Regard to the race, religion, origin, or status of the potential victims will not be weighed beyond the consideration of friendly fire on allied citizens, cities, or forces."

I see very few possible situations where these conditions would be met, even when making up many scenarios that would meet the requirements. However, since we have nuclear weapons, we might as well have good rules as to when they can be used... Getting rid of them would give the image that we're "weak" and "vulnerable" to many people, even though it doesn't really mean that at all. So I doubt that that would be done any time soon.
The reason for the part about no consideration of race is meant to imply that the attack should not be more or less likely depending on who the people are.. Such as thinking that it's not as bad to kill 1,000 people of one religion as it would be to let 1,000 people of another religion.. Also, 1,000 innocent people of another country losing their life due to a nuclear weapon should not be weighed as better than 900 people from our country through a conventional attack.. I wouldn't want to make it really "easy" for people to justify using nuclear weapons, which is why I said "far outweighed"... It would need to be something like.. Much certainty that 5 million people or more would be killed or injured because of a "conventional" war, as opposed to 5,000 through a nuclear strike... That would of course need to include the loss from potential nuclear retaliation, if they had such weapons or other weapons of mass destruction, and the possibility of terrorism.. I don't mean that every circumstance would have to be as extreme as 1,000:1, but it would need to be some very separated ratio, for sure.

On both issues, what do you think?