US Army Intel Specialist Admits Torture in Iraq; Marines, Navy SEALS also Torturing

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

See my above post.

I saw it and I think the reason NYE and myself might be misconstruing your position is that you really don't seem to have one...

I think the reason you're misconstruing my position is that it is slightly less ridiculously black-and-white than most of those seen in this thread.

[notyoueither]

Do I have misgivings about weakening the prohibitions against any form of chemical agent for fear that this will lead to escalating use of these agents? Yes.

I'm not certain where the use of WP lies in this. It doesn't repulse me in the same way as torture allegations do, but I fear the long-term consequences.

It's been being used since 1941, if not earlier.

[Drake Tungsten]

I don't see what's so "black and white" about mine and NYE's position. We've allowed that WP can have terrible effects and can be used illegally. All we're saying is that WP is clearly not a chemical weapon, which is abundantly clear to anyone who can read the relevant international law.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
If isn't defined by international law as a "chemical weapon", then no. There are scores of legal weapons that are both "chemical" and "weapons", but that doesn't make them "chemical weapons" in the generally accepted sense of that term. Those weapons that are classified as "chemical weapons" are done so by treaty.

No, they aren't. There's no list of chemical weapons banned by treaty. You have no clue what you're talking about here, Drake. The relevant treaties ban usages, not chemicals.

[notyoueither]

I think Drake is saying that black powder is a chemical and a weapon, and it has no restrictions.

Phosgene is a chemical and a weapon, and it has restrictions.

He is arguing usage, actually.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I don't see what's so "black and white" about mine and NYE's position. We've allowed that WP can have terrible effects and can be used illegally. All we're saying is that WP is clearly not a chemical weapon, which is abundantly clear to anyone who can read the relevant international law.

You obviously haven't read it if you think that there's some giant list of "chemical weapons" banned by law. Chemicals may be used in one case as a chemical agent, in a manner banned by international law (such as it is) and in another case as a part of a conventional weapon, fully in accordance with all international law. This is a well-known phenomenon, Drake. For instance, occasionally the US military finds it useful to clear out caves/tunnels by pumping the tunnel full of an explosive gas and then detonating it. This is perfectly legitimate. If they didn't detonate the gas and simply let it asphyxiate all those inside then they would be guilty of violating the 1928 protocol as well as half a dozen other international treaties.

[Drake Tungsten]

Chemicals subject to restriction under the CWC (Chemicals Weapons Convention)

Schedule 1 Chemicals

Schedule 2 Chemicals

Schedule 3 Chemicals

And of course I meant that certain usages of certain chemicals are banned, not that certain chemicals are banned entirely.

I think Drake is saying that black powder is a chemical and a weapon, and it has no restrictions.

Phosgene is a chemical and a weapon, and it has restrictions.

He is arguing usage, actually.

Exactly.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I think Drake is saying that black powder is a chemical and a weapon, and it has no restrictions.

Phosgene is a chemical and a weapon, and it has restrictions.

He is arguing usage, actually.

There is no list of "approved" chemicals either, NYE.

No chemical falls into either "completely banned" or "unrestricted use". For good reason.

[DRoseDARs]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


No, they aren't. There's no list of chemical weapons banned by treaty. You have no clue what you're talking about here, Drake. The relevant treaties ban usages, not chemicals.

Erm, sorry but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

Schedule 1:
Toxic chemicals

* O-Alkyl (
Sarin: O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate
Soman: O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate

* O-Alkyl (
Tabun: O-Ethyl N,N-dimethylphosphoramidocyanidate

* O-Alkyl (H or
VX: O-Ethyl S-2-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonothiolate

* Sulfur mustards:

2-Chloroethylchloromethylsulfide
Mustard gas: Bis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide
Bis(2-chloroethylthio)methane
Sesquimustard: 1,2-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)ethane
1,3-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-propane
1,4-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-butane
1,5-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-pentane
Bis(2-chloroethylthiomethyl)ether
O-Mustard: Bis(2-chloroethylthioethyl)ether

* Lewisites:

Lewisite 1: 2-Chlorovinyldichloroarsine
Lewisite 2: Bis(2-chlorovinyl)chloroarsine
Lewisite 3: Tris(2-chlorovinyl)arsine

* Nitrogen mustards:

HN1: Bis(2-chloroethyl)ethylamine
HN2: Bis(2-chloroethyl)methylamine
HN3: Tris(2-chloroethyl)amine

* Saxitoxin

* Ricin

[edit]

Precursors

* Alkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonyldifluorides, e.g.

DF: Methylphosphonyldifluoride

* O-Alkyl (H or
QL: O-Ethyl O-2-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonite

* Chlorosarin: O-Isopropyl methylphosphonochloridate

* Chlorosoman: O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonochloridate

Schedule 2:
Toxic chemicals

* Amiton: O,O-Diethyl S-(2-(diethylamino)ethyl)phosphorothiolate and corresponding alkylated or protonated salts

* PFIB: 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene

* 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (BZ)

[edit]

Precursors

* Chemicals, except for those listed in Schedule 1, containing a phosphorus atom to which is bonded one methyl, ethyl or propyl (normal or iso) group but not further carbon atoms, e.g.

Methylphosphonyl dichloride
Dimethyl methylphosphonate
Exemption: Fonofos: O-Ethyl S-phenyl ethylphosphonothiolothionate

* N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphoramidic dihalides

* Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) N,N-dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-phosphoramidates

* Arsenic trichloride

* 2,2-Diphenyl-2-hydroxyacetic acid

* Quinuclidin-3-ol

* N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethyl-2-chlorides and corresponding protonated salts

* N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-olsand corresponding protonated salts

Exemptions: N,N-Dimethylaminoethanol and corresponding protonated salts; N,N-Diethylaminoethanol and corresponding protonated salts

* N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-thiols and corresponding protonated salts

* Thiodiglycol: Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)sulfide

* Pinacolyl alcohol: 3,3-Dimethylbutan-2-ol

Schedule 3:
Toxic chemicals

* Phosgene: Carbonyl dichloride

* Cyanogen chloride

* Hydrogen cyanide

* Chloropicrin: Trichloronitromethane

[edit]

Precursors

* Phosphorus oxychloride

* Phosphorus trichloride

* Phosphorus pentachloride

* Trimethyl phosphite

* Triethyl phosphite

* Dimethyl phosphite

* Diethyl phosphite

* Sulfur monochloride

* Sulfur dichloride

* Thionyl chloride

* Ethyldiethanolamine

* Methyldiethanolamine

* Triethanolamine

Phosphorus does appear in the above, but I don't know the chemical makeup of white phosphorus so I don't know if it's in that list or not. Read through the Wiki article carefully as each schedule has stipulations.

Edit: I was slow, but I guess it doesn't matter. The issue isn't much clearer anyway.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/more/geneva_protocol.html

[KrazyHorse]

The 1928 protocol is still in effect, the last I checked.

CWC is one treaty out of a few, and bans specific uses of specific chemicals (not just specific chemicals).

[notyoueither]

Pumping in gas, and then firing it, is legitimate...

I take it then that you do not see firing a WP round into a strong point as being illigitimate.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/more..._protocol.html

That's not a ban on chemical warfare that has anything to do with WP or napalm.

[KrazyHorse]

It depends. Why are you using WP instead of a HE? Are you doing it to start a fire in the structure? Are you doing it to produce a noxious gas?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


That's not a ban on chemical warfare that has anything to do with WP or napalm.

WP creates a noxious gas, and exposure to WP can poison a human being through chemical toxicity. Both are prohibited under the 1928 protocol.