Does this mean we repeal all the "Ban Chemical Weapons"? I think, we should just create anotherone permiting the use of domestic chemical weapons. They are inmortant, but do they justify the permition of the use of war chemicals? Repeal the resolution that stops countries from having deadly and unnecesary weapons just because of a pepper spray? I think that is odd (at least :) ). I propose to vote against "Ban Chemical Weapons" and create another one that permits the use of any kind of pepper spray :) . Or, we could modify the existing "Ban Chemical Weapons" and vote for its aproval instead.
Australiensus
03-09-2005, 12:37
Pepper Spray could only be classified a chemical weapon if someone has a severe allergic reaction to it.
Under such a ruling, someone who had an allergic reaction to the venom in bee stings, or the preservatives in fast food could apply under this section to have such a substance repealed.
That's not the aim. I think deadly chemical weapons are more of a concern here, such as mustard gas.
Listeneisse
03-09-2005, 13:45
Yes, this repeal is being proposed because it is trying to equate 'OC' Pepper Spray -- a non-lethal, non-persistent chemical agent -- the same as 'GB' Sarin nerve gas, which would kill you in 1-10 minutes, or 'VX' which will destroy you in a slow, lingering death 4-42 hours after exposure.
If you survive a nerve gas attack, effects can linger for up to 6 weeks, even if permanent brain or body damage was not suffered due to loss of consciousness or near-death conditions.
'Mustard gas' agents (H-series blister agents, such as H Levinstein mustard, or HD, HS, HL, HQ) and arsenical L (Lewisite) are not 'lethal' but are called blister agents. Mild cases (75% of WWI casualties) suffer conjunctivitis (watering and reddening of the eyes) and unclear vision lasting 1-2 weeks. 25% of WWI casualties were severe cases, suffering 2 weeks to 3 months of recovery. Full blindness was rare. Blisters and lesions can still develop up to 2 weeks after exposure. The penis and scrotum particularly could suffer full skin loss. Lesions are painful and can turn black.
In comparison, 'OC' Pepper spray, or 'CN' or 'CS' tear gas type weapons are not considered lethal chemical weapons, though they do have NATO designators for use in police and military actions. They are even covered in the same NATO FM. However, it is clear that they are considered of "very low toxicity (chronic or acute) and a short duration of action. Little or no latent period occurs after exposure."
CS, CN, and the like are known to cause chronic problems like glaucoma or cataracts, or acute and even lethal problems like respiratory arrest, but these are usually only suffered due to prolonged exposure, and are not the specific design of the agents; they are the extreme cases of their use.
For people curious how the 'real world' deals with this, in 1999, there was a new organization founded to deal with this very problem:
Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (http://www.opcw.org/)
They produced a charter dealing with this very issue:
Chemical Weapons Convention (CW Convention or CWC) (http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_menu.html)
In it is a schedule of chemical weapons and precursor agents that are actually covered under the ban, and guidelines for how to determine whether chemicals and precursor agents belong on the schedule of banned or controlled materials:
Guidelines for the Schedule of Chemicals (http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_annex_on_chemicals.html#a)
Schedule of Chemicals (http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_annex_on_chemicals.html#b)
No where on the Schedule are CN, CS (tear gas), OC (pepper spray), or the like mentioned. These are typically not termed 'chemical weapons agents' but 'riot control agents.'
However, signatories to the CWC are bound as follows, "5. Each State Party undertakes not to use riot control agents as a method of warfare." It would be illegal to tear gas buildings or an entire village during battle.
________________
Sources
Chemical Warfare Agents (http://www.sis.nlm.nih.gov/enviro/chemicalwarfare.html)
Sulfur Musturd: 3. Health Effects (http://atsdr1.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp49-c3.pdf) (PDF)
FM 8-9 NATO HANDBOOK ON THE MEDICAL ASPECTS OF NBC DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS AMedP-6(B), PART III - CHEMICAL: Chapter 3: Vesicants (Blister Agents) (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-9/3ch3.htm#s1)
CDC: Nerve Agents FAQ (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfactsd4.html)
FM 8-9 NATO HANDBOOK ON THE MEDICAL ASPECTS OF NBC DEFENSIVE OPERATIONS AMedP-6(B), PART III - CHEMICAL: Chapter 7: Riot Control Agents (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/fm8-9/3ch7.htm)
Riot Control Agent Poisoning (http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/riotcontrol/agentpoisoning.asp)
CBRNE - Irritants: Cs, Cn, Cnc, Ca, Cr, Cnb, PS (http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic914.htm)
Forgottenlands
03-09-2005, 16:57
Wow, take a week off and a bunch of new faces come forth
Anyways, the problem with Mod law is that we are not allowed to make any resolutions that either ammend or contradict (in full or partially) any other resolution that has been passed. As such, to make the correction, we have to completely repeal the old resolution and write a new one to replace it that takes the flaw into account. A draft of a new chemical weapons resolution has been circulating through the forums of various UN Member groups (National Sovereignty Organization and UN Old Guard, as far as I know) and will (if it hasn't already) get posted on this forum eventually.