Post Reply Should countries be allowed to own chemical weapons?
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 11/19/14

How Do We Regulate Chemical Weapons?

Summary:

Recently it was revealed that ISIS might have used chemical weapons in the current conflict in Kobani, Syria. Chemical weapons are banned internationally and thus the use of weapons such as mustard gas that was once used during the First World War is deemed illegal. The treaty that bans the use of chemical weapons internationally has also banned their development, production and stock pile. Nations are still allowed to produce some chemicals, but they are not allowed to weaponize them. For the most part, this treaty has been successful in regulating the use and production of chemical weapons across the globe, 189 nations have signed the agreement representing about 98% of the world and 84% of chemical weapons have be destroyed. However, there are still countries that have not signed this treaty (ie: Angola, Egypt, and North Korea) and we do not know the current circumstances in those nations with regards to chemical arms. There are countries including US and Russia who are not destroying their stock piles at the rate they have promised. Syria is another example showing how difficult regulating chemical weapons can be, having been revealed to possess a large arsenal of chemical weapons back in 2013.
Banned
334 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M / The Beyond.
Offline
Posted 11/20/14 , edited 1/24/15
No, they should not.
5906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / 38.2500° N, 85.76...
Offline
Posted 11/20/14 , edited 11/20/14
That cat is out of the bag. The countries that are against countries owning chemical weapons are biggest producers of it and have biggest stockpiles. They just want to be only one having it. Same goes for Nuclear bomb. US has enough chemical weapons to destroy world atleast 100 times over. same for biological and nuclear 100x each
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 11/20/14
Well.....

I'm going to disagree and say it's futile and pointless

One of the first chemicals used in warfare was....

Chlorine. Bleached the fields white and killed millions.

but chlorine gas has many purposes.

Another highly toxic poison used in espionage? Ricin*. Powdered it can disperse into the air and kill you damned near instantly. All it takes in its purest form is a few grains as small as a table salt. It comes from castor beans, which we get castor oil from that's used as a deterrent for many mammilian pests (ricin removed from the castor oil.)

Arsenic? Often used for coloring in ceramics and has other non-food purposes.

And that leads me to another thing: some of the chemical weapons end up being used as pesticides and rodentcides. (not the greatest stuff to spray on your food, but in other areas, such as deep in subway tunnels or such where people should not be...)

And not to mention this stuff is all very easily manufactured. It's not the same as getting your hands on some weapons grade anthrax, or some lab mutated plague viruses. Or refining uranium.





*Not sure if ricin qualifies as a chemical weapon but going with it... Biological, as far as I know, means disease, and chemical is not your traditional bullets and blades, nor does it fit under biological or nuclear. It does come from a plant though so...
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 11/20/14

serifsansserif wrote:

Well.....

I'm going to disagree and say it's futile and pointless
I think pest control ≠ chemical weapons
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 11/20/14

FlyinDumpling wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:

Well.....

I'm going to disagree and say it's futile and pointless
I think pest control ≠ chemical weapons


I think you're missing my point. The chemicals used are incredibly easy to obtain, create, and weaponize. They're a part of things we use all the time, and you just can't regulate it. It's even foolish to try because those chemicals are so valuable to other uses.

The only thing we can ask is not to weaponize them. But those that will weaponize them, will, and they could be stored seperate from the method of deployment, so really, they can claim not to be doing so, and you'd have no proof contrary.

Hence pointless and futile.

I mean how are you going to outlaw chlorine????? I mean FFS, we go through tons of it every summer in swimming pools across the nation.
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 11/20/14

serifsansserif wrote:

I think you're missing my point. The chemicals used are incredibly easy to obtain, create, and weaponize. They're a part of things we use all the time, and you just can't regulate it. It's even foolish to try because those chemicals are so valuable to other uses.

The only thing we can ask is not to weaponize them. But those that will weaponize them, will, and they could be stored seperate from the method of deployment, so really, they can claim not to be doing so, and you'd have no proof contrary.

Hence pointless and futile.

I mean how are you going to outlaw chlorine????? I mean FFS, we go through tons of it every summer in swimming pools across the nation.
Weaponized chemicals are outlawed, it doesn't mean the chemicals themselves are. Like I have stated before, nations are still allowed to produce some chemicals, but they are not allowed to weaponize them.
9200 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M
Offline
Posted 11/20/14

FlyinDumpling wrote:


serifsansserif wrote:

I think you're missing my point. The chemicals used are incredibly easy to obtain, create, and weaponize. They're a part of things we use all the time, and you just can't regulate it. It's even foolish to try because those chemicals are so valuable to other uses.

The only thing we can ask is not to weaponize them. But those that will weaponize them, will, and they could be stored seperate from the method of deployment, so really, they can claim not to be doing so, and you'd have no proof contrary.

Hence pointless and futile.

I mean how are you going to outlaw chlorine????? I mean FFS, we go through tons of it every summer in swimming pools across the nation.
Weaponized chemicals are outlawed, it doesn't mean the chemicals themselves are. Like I have stated before, nations are still allowed to produce some chemicals, but they are not allowed to weaponize them.


but if I got the chemicals, and I got the weapons, how are you going to prove I'm not weaponizing it, and and even if I was, if I kept it all separate and in a non-weaponized form until I was pretty much ready to use... How could you raise claims legitimately that I was intending to use it for that use?
17189 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 11/20/14

serifsansserif wrote:

but if I got the chemicals, and I got the weapons, how are you going to prove I'm not weaponizing it, and and even if I was, if I kept it all separate and in a non-weaponized form until I was pretty much ready to use... How could you raise claims legitimately that I was intending to use it for that use?
I'm not a chemist, however to say that students in ceramics class are handling chemical weapons when they paint their pottery would be misleading. I am aware that there are countries that have them in their inventory in large numbers indicating it's intentions to be used as weapons. Given the example, it's very likely that there are countries that posses chemical weapons without us knowing. So yes, countries can posses chemical weapons discreetly.
Posted 11/20/14
It's like how skunks have their spray. It's only fair that something else can use a chemical weapon to improve the odds of success.
35035 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 11/21/14 , edited 11/21/14
While it's practically universally agreed that chemical weapons bans and destruction measures are in order (note that there's only a handful of states which aren't parties to some convention or another), the destruction of mass chemical weapon stockpiles is environmentally dangerous and extremely expensive. You can't reasonably expect it to go quickly even in states which are well-equipped and willing to do so, particularly the US and Russia. The Cold War led to expansion of practically every weapon stockpile you can imagine, and to extreme degrees. It'll take a minute.

Edit: Also, chemical weapons shouldn't be blanket banned. Things like tear gas and pepper spray fall under the legal definition, and I oppose banning either.
39015 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Tralfamadore
Offline
Posted 11/23/14
Nothing more than some Mentos and diet cola, maybe some pop rocks but that's about it.
6250 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / United Kingdom
Offline
Posted 1/24/15
In the UK the government still produces and experiments at Porton Down under the premise of defence. We used to produce and stockpile Sarin at Nanckuke but that was all thrown down a mineshaft in the 80's and is slowly leaking out and killing the sealife in the area. A load of other stuff was dumped in the Atlantic. I don't think countries should own chemical weapons, it's clear from the development over the years that targeted delivery was pretty hard and it inflicts horrible suffering. In WW1 the British pretty much always gassed themselves when using chlorine. Germany developed Nerve Agents which are slightly more humane.

Hitler had access to the best nerve agents at the time, Sarin and Taban and on D-Day could have used these on the beaches but chose not to. Maybe he thought it too risky for the well being of his soldiers or because he was exposed to mustard gas in WW1 and didn't want anyone suffering like that (Doubtful!) . Countries have developed & produced it, but have never deployed it full scale as a weapon (since WW1) , maybe those in charge think it a step too far?
You must be logged in to post.