Originally posted by Vapour
anyway, chemcial weapon is not really weapon of mass *destruction*. It is a good weapon of area denail. Aumu Shirikyou would have killed more if they simply detonated a bomb in a train.
That truly depends upon its deployment. Aum Shirikyou would have killed more if they hadn't been so concerned about getting off the train alive.As for chemical weapons they are, by every definition of the word, weapons of mass destruction, and, depending upon their deployment, caoable of causing massive deaths.
In security and foreign policy analyses, “weapons of mass destruction” is a term that generally encompasses nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, with radiological weapons occasionally included. Contemporary international legal analysis generally follows this conventional definition of WMD, even though neither treaty law nor customary international law contains an authoritative definition of WMD. The reason such a definition does not exist is that states have historically used international law to address each category of weapons within the WMD rubric. International law specifically on WMD is, thus, composed of three different sets of rules for each WMD technology. General rules of international law, such as international humanitarian law, also apply to WMD; but these general principles were not developed specifically to address WMD.
The dominant international legal activity on WMD has been the negotiation and implementation of arms control treaties. This arms control approach reflected three objectives—to deter the use of WMD by states (e.g., nuclear arms control treaties between the United States and the former Soviet Union), to prohibit the emplacement and testing of WMD in certain areas (e.g., treaties prohibiting WMD in orbit or on the sea-bed or ocean floor ), and to produce WMD disarmament (e.g., treaties prohibiting development and use of biological and chemical weapons). Although arms control treaties contributed to the development of customary norms restricting or prohibiting the use of WMD, development and possession of WMD was not, outside the treaty context, illegal under customary international law.
Lastly, U.S. federal statute, Title 18, Section 2332 a(a) defines a weapon of mass destruction as a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon, with no reference to yield, while a conventional explosive, rocket or other incendiary and/or explosive devices come under section 921 of Title 18, and are referred to as “destructive devices.” The title appears to some to exclude aircraft by its language, but this has been the subject of much legal debate and wrangling, as in the case of Zacharias Massoui.
I can't say anything about an al Qaeda cell in Jordan.
Aaron J. Cuffee
As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
- H.L. Mencken