| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Bear" |
| Date: |
17 Nov 2005 03:28:28 AM |
| Object: |
Annex on Chemicals |
Annex on Chemicals
A. GUIDELINES FOR SCHEDULES OF CHEMICALS
Guidelines for Schedule 1
1. The following criteria shall be taken into account in considering whether
a toxic chemical or precursor should be included in Schedule 1:
(a) It has been developed, produced, stockpiled or used as a chemical
weapon as defined in Article II;
(b) It poses otherwise a high risk to the object and purpose of this
Convention by virtue of its high potential for use in activities prohibited
under this Convention because one or more of the following conditions are
met:
(i) It possesses a chemical structure closely related to that of
other toxic chemicals listed in Schedule 1, and has, or can be expected to
have, comparable properties;
(ii) It possesses such lethal or incapacitating toxicity as well as
other properties that would enable it to be used as a chemical weapon;
(iii) It may be used as a precursor in the final single
technological stage of production of a toxic chemical listed in Schedule 1,
regardless of whether this stage takes place in facilities, in munitions or
elsewhere;
(c) It has little or no use for purposes not prohibited under this
Convention.
Guidelines for Schedule 2
2. The following criteria shall be taken into account in considering whether
a toxic chemical not listed in Schedule 1 or a precursor to a Schedule 1
chemical or to a chemical listed in Schedule 2, part A, should be included
in Schedule 2:
(a) It poses a significant risk to the object and purpose of this
Convention because it possesses such lethal or incapacitating toxicity as
well as other properties that could enable it to be used as a chemical
weapon;
(b) It may be used as a precursor in one of the chemical reactions at
the final stage of formation of a chemical listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule
2, part A;
(c) It poses a significant risk to the object and purpose of this
Convention by virtue of its importance in the production of a chemical
listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, part A;
(d) It is not produced in large commercial quantities for purposes not
prohibited under this Convention.
Guidelines for Schedule 3
3. The following criteria shall be taken into account in considering whether
a toxic chemical or precursor, not listed in other Schedules, should be
included in Schedule 3:
(a) It has been produced, stockpiled or used as a chemical weapon;
(b) It poses otherwise a risk to the object and purpose of this
Convention because it possesses such lethal or incapacitating toxicity as
well as other properties that might enable it to be used as a chemical
weapon;
(c) It poses a risk to the object and purpose of this Convention by
virtue of its importance in the production of one or more chemicals listed
in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, part B;
(d) It may be produced in large commercial quantities for purposes not
prohibited under this Convention.
B. SCHEDULES OF CHEMICALS
The following Schedules list toxic chemicals and their precursors. For the
purpose of implementing this Convention, these Schedules identify chemicals
for the application of verification measures according to the provisions of
the Verification Annex. Pursuant to Article II, subparagraph 1 (a), these
Schedules do not constitute a definition of chemical weapons.
(Whenever reference is made to groups of dialkylated chemicals, followed by
a list of alkyl groups in parentheses, all chemicals possible by all
possible combinations of alkyl groups listed in the parentheses are
considered as listed in the respective Schedule as long as they are not
explicitly exempted. A chemical marked "*" on Schedule 2, part A, is subject
to special thresholds for declaration and verification, as specified in Part
VII of the Verification Annex.)
Schedule 1 (CAS Registry number)
A. Toxic chemicals:
(1) O-Alkyl (<C10, incl. cycloalkyl) alkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-phosphonofluoridates
e.g. Sarin: O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate (107-44-8)
Soman: O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate (96-64-0)
(2) O-Alkyl (<C10, incl. cycloalkyl) N,N-dialkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphoramidocyanidates
e.g. Tabun: O-Ethyl N,N-dimethyl
phosphoramidocyanidate (77-81-6)
(3) O-Alkyl (H or <C10, incl. cycloalkyl) S-2-dialkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-aminoethyl alkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonothiolates and
corresponding alkylated or protonated salts
e.g. VX: O-Ethyl S-2-diisopropylaminoethyl
methyl phosphonothiolate (50782-69-9)
(4) Sulfur mustards:
2-Chloroethylchloromethylsulfide (2625-76-5)
Mustard gas: Bis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide (505-60-2)
Bis(2-chloroethylthio)methane (63869-13-6)
Sesquimustard: 1,2-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)ethane (3563-36-8)
1,3-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-propane (63905-10-2)
1,4-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-butane (142868-93-7)
1,5-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-pentane (142868-94-8)
Bis(2-chloroethylthiomethyl)ether (63918-90-1)
O-Mustard: Bis(2-chloroethylthioethyl)ether (63918-89-8)
(5) Lewisites:
Lewisite 1: 2-Chlorovinyldichloroarsine (541-25-3)
Lewisite 2: Bis(2-chlorovinyl)chloroarsine (40334-69-8)
Lewisite 3: Tris(2-chlorovinyl)arsine (40334-70-1)
(6) Nitrogen mustards:
HN1: Bis(2-chloroethyl)ethylamine (538-07-8)
HN2: Bis(2-chloroethyl)methylamine (51-75-2)
HN3: Tris(2-chloroethyl)amine (555-77-1)
(7) Saxitoxin (35523-89-8)
(8) Ricin (9009-86-3)
B. Precursors:
(9) Alkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonyldifluorides
e.g. DF: Methylphosphonyldifluoride (676-99-3)
(10) O-Alkyl (H or <C10, incl. cycloalkyl) O-2-dialkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-aminoethyl alkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonites and
corresponding alkylated or protonated salts
e.g. QL: O-Ethyl O-2-diisopropylaminoethyl
methylphosphonite (57856-11-8)
(11) Chlorosarin: O-Isopropyl methylphosphonochloridate (1445-76-7)
(12) Chlorosoman: O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonochloridate (7040-57-5)
Schedule 2 (CAS Registry number)
A. Toxic chemicals:
(1) Amiton: O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(diethylamino)ethyl]
phosphorothiolate (78-53-5)
and corresponding alkylated or protonated salts
(2) PFIB: 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene (382-21-8)
(3) BZ: 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (*) (6581-06-2)
B. Precursors:
(4) 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 (676-97-1)
Dimethyl methylphosphonate (756-79-6)
Exemption: Fonofos: O-Ethyl S-phenyl
ethylphosphonothiolothionate (944-22-9)
(5) N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphoramidic dihalides
(6) Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) N,N-dialkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-phosphoramidates
(7) Arsenic trichloride (7784-34-1)
(8) 2,2-Diphenyl-2-hydroxyacetic acid (76-93-7)
(9) Quinuclidin-3-ol (1619-34-7)
(10) N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethyl-2-chlorides
and corresponding protonated salts
(11) N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-ols
and corresponding protonated salts
Exemptions: N,N-Dimethylaminoethanol (108-01-0)
and corresponding protonated salts
N,N-Diethylaminoethanol (100-37-8)
and corresponding protonated salts
(12) N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-thiols
and corresponding protonated salts
(13) Thiodiglycol: Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)sulfide (111-48-8)
(14) Pinacolyl alcohol: 3,3-Dimethylbutan-2-ol (464-07-3)
Schedule 3 (CAS Registry number)
A. Toxic chemicals:
(1) Phosgene: Carbonyl dichloride (75-44-5)
(2) Cyanogen chloride (506-77-4)
(3) Hydrogen cyanide (74-90-8)
(4) Chloropicrin: Trichloronitromethane (76-06-2)
B. Precursors:
(5) Phosphorus oxychloride (10025-87-3)
(6) Phosphorus trichloride (7719-12-2)
(7) Phosphorus pentachloride (10026-13-8)
(8) Trimethyl phosphite (121-45-9)
(9) Triethyl phosphite (122-52-1)
(10) Dimethyl phosphite (868-85-9)
(11) Diethyl phosphite (762-04-9)
(12) Sulfur monochloride (10025-67-9)
(13) Sulfur dichloride (10545-99-0)
(14) Thionyl chloride (7719-09-7)
(15) Ethyldiethanolamine (139-87-7)
(16) Methyldiethanolamine (105-59-9)
(17) Triethanolamine (102-71-6)
(http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html)
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 03:37:30 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:28:28 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
Annex on Chemicals
A. GUIDELINES FOR SCHEDULES OF CHEMICALS
Guidelines for Schedule 1
1. The following criteria shall be taken into account in considering whether
a toxic chemical or precursor should be included in Schedule 1:
(a) It has been developed, produced, stockpiled or used as a chemical
weapon as defined in Article II;
(b) It poses otherwise a high risk to the object and purpose of this
Convention by virtue of its high potential for use in activities prohibited
under this Convention because one or more of the following conditions are
met:
(i) It possesses a chemical structure closely related to that of
other toxic chemicals listed in Schedule 1, and has, or can be expected to
have, comparable properties;
(ii) It possesses such lethal or incapacitating toxicity as well as
other properties that would enable it to be used as a chemical weapon;
(iii) It may be used as a precursor in the final single
technological stage of production of a toxic chemical listed in Schedule 1,
regardless of whether this stage takes place in facilities, in munitions or
elsewhere;
(c) It has little or no use for purposes not prohibited under this
Convention.
Guidelines for Schedule 2
2. The following criteria shall be taken into account in considering whether
a toxic chemical not listed in Schedule 1 or a precursor to a Schedule 1
chemical or to a chemical listed in Schedule 2, part A, should be included
in Schedule 2:
(a) It poses a significant risk to the object and purpose of this
Convention because it possesses such lethal or incapacitating toxicity as
well as other properties that could enable it to be used as a chemical
weapon;
(b) It may be used as a precursor in one of the chemical reactions at
the final stage of formation of a chemical listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule
2, part A;
(c) It poses a significant risk to the object and purpose of this
Convention by virtue of its importance in the production of a chemical
listed in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, part A;
(d) It is not produced in large commercial quantities for purposes not
prohibited under this Convention.
Guidelines for Schedule 3
3. The following criteria shall be taken into account in considering whether
a toxic chemical or precursor, not listed in other Schedules, should be
included in Schedule 3:
(a) It has been produced, stockpiled or used as a chemical weapon;
(b) It poses otherwise a risk to the object and purpose of this
Convention because it possesses such lethal or incapacitating toxicity as
well as other properties that might enable it to be used as a chemical
weapon;
(c) It poses a risk to the object and purpose of this Convention by
virtue of its importance in the production of one or more chemicals listed
in Schedule 1 or Schedule 2, part B;
(d) It may be produced in large commercial quantities for purposes not
prohibited under this Convention.
B. SCHEDULES OF CHEMICALS
The following Schedules list toxic chemicals and their precursors. For the
purpose of implementing this Convention, these Schedules identify chemicals
for the application of verification measures according to the provisions of
the Verification Annex. Pursuant to Article II, subparagraph 1 (a), these
Schedules do not constitute a definition of chemical weapons.
(Whenever reference is made to groups of dialkylated chemicals, followed by
a list of alkyl groups in parentheses, all chemicals possible by all
possible combinations of alkyl groups listed in the parentheses are
considered as listed in the respective Schedule as long as they are not
explicitly exempted. A chemical marked "*" on Schedule 2, part A, is subject
to special thresholds for declaration and verification, as specified in Part
VII of the Verification Annex.)
Schedule 1 (CAS Registry number)
A. Toxic chemicals:
(1) O-Alkyl (<C10, incl. cycloalkyl) alkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-phosphonofluoridates
e.g. Sarin: O-Isopropyl methylphosphonofluoridate (107-44-8)
Soman: O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonofluoridate (96-64-0)
(2) O-Alkyl (<C10, incl. cycloalkyl) N,N-dialkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphoramidocyanidates
e.g. Tabun: O-Ethyl N,N-dimethyl
phosphoramidocyanidate (77-81-6)
(3) O-Alkyl (H or <C10, incl. cycloalkyl) S-2-dialkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-aminoethyl alkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonothiolates and
corresponding alkylated or protonated salts
e.g. VX: O-Ethyl S-2-diisopropylaminoethyl
methyl phosphonothiolate (50782-69-9)
(4) Sulfur mustards:
2-Chloroethylchloromethylsulfide (2625-76-5)
Mustard gas: Bis(2-chloroethyl)sulfide (505-60-2)
Bis(2-chloroethylthio)methane (63869-13-6)
Sesquimustard: 1,2-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)ethane (3563-36-8)
1,3-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-propane (63905-10-2)
1,4-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-butane (142868-93-7)
1,5-Bis(2-chloroethylthio)-n-pentane (142868-94-8)
Bis(2-chloroethylthiomethyl)ether (63918-90-1)
O-Mustard: Bis(2-chloroethylthioethyl)ether (63918-89-8)
(5) Lewisites:
Lewisite 1: 2-Chlorovinyldichloroarsine (541-25-3)
Lewisite 2: Bis(2-chlorovinyl)chloroarsine (40334-69-8)
Lewisite 3: Tris(2-chlorovinyl)arsine (40334-70-1)
(6) Nitrogen mustards:
HN1: Bis(2-chloroethyl)ethylamine (538-07-8)
HN2: Bis(2-chloroethyl)methylamine (51-75-2)
HN3: Tris(2-chloroethyl)amine (555-77-1)
(7) Saxitoxin (35523-89-8)
(8) Ricin (9009-86-3)
B. Precursors:
(9) Alkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonyldifluorides
e.g. DF: Methylphosphonyldifluoride (676-99-3)
(10) O-Alkyl (H or <C10, incl. cycloalkyl) O-2-dialkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-aminoethyl alkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphonites and
corresponding alkylated or protonated salts
e.g. QL: O-Ethyl O-2-diisopropylaminoethyl
methylphosphonite (57856-11-8)
(11) Chlorosarin: O-Isopropyl methylphosphonochloridate (1445-76-7)
(12) Chlorosoman: O-Pinacolyl methylphosphonochloridate (7040-57-5)
Schedule 2 (CAS Registry number)
A. Toxic chemicals:
(1) Amiton: O,O-Diethyl S-[2-(diethylamino)ethyl]
phosphorothiolate (78-53-5)
and corresponding alkylated or protonated salts
(2) PFIB: 1,1,3,3,3-Pentafluoro-2-(trifluoromethyl)-1-propene (382-21-8)
(3) BZ: 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate (*) (6581-06-2)
B. Precursors:
(4) 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 (676-97-1)
Dimethyl methylphosphonate (756-79-6)
Exemption: Fonofos: O-Ethyl S-phenyl
ethylphosphonothiolothionate (944-22-9)
(5) N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) phosphoramidic dihalides
(6) Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) N,N-dialkyl
(Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr)-phosphoramidates
(7) Arsenic trichloride (7784-34-1)
(8) 2,2-Diphenyl-2-hydroxyacetic acid (76-93-7)
(9) Quinuclidin-3-ol (1619-34-7)
(10) N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethyl-2-chlorides
and corresponding protonated salts
(11) N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-ols
and corresponding protonated salts
Exemptions: N,N-Dimethylaminoethanol (108-01-0)
and corresponding protonated salts
N,N-Diethylaminoethanol (100-37-8)
and corresponding protonated salts
(12) N,N-Dialkyl (Me, Et, n-Pr or i-Pr) aminoethane-2-thiols
and corresponding protonated salts
(13) Thiodiglycol: Bis(2-hydroxyethyl)sulfide (111-48-8)
(14) Pinacolyl alcohol: 3,3-Dimethylbutan-2-ol (464-07-3)
Schedule 3 (CAS Registry number)
A. Toxic chemicals:
(1) Phosgene: Carbonyl dichloride (75-44-5)
(2) Cyanogen chloride (506-77-4)
(3) Hydrogen cyanide (74-90-8)
(4) Chloropicrin: Trichloronitromethane (76-06-2)
B. Precursors:
(5) Phosphorus oxychloride (10025-87-3)
(6) Phosphorus trichloride (7719-12-2)
(7) Phosphorus pentachloride (10026-13-8)
(8) Trimethyl phosphite (121-45-9)
(9) Triethyl phosphite (122-52-1)
(10) Dimethyl phosphite (868-85-9)
(11) Diethyl phosphite (762-04-9)
(12) Sulfur monochloride (10025-67-9)
(13) Sulfur dichloride (10545-99-0)
(14) Thionyl chloride (7719-09-7)
(15) Ethyldiethanolamine (139-87-7)
(16) Methyldiethanolamine (105-59-9)
(17) Triethanolamine (102-71-6)
(http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html)
So, you post all that and yet you still can't get by the fact that
when WP is used against human targets, it is considered a chemical
weapon by the CWC and thus by the US.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 03:45:48 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: So, you post all that and yet you still can't get by the fact that
: when WP is used against human targets, it is considered a chemical
: weapon by the CWC and thus by the US.
NO, it is considered illegal! Its classification does not change at all!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Westley" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 05:06:07 AM |
|
|
"Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> writes:
"Adam H." wrote
: So, you post all that and yet you still can't get by the fact that
: when WP is used against human targets, it is considered a chemical
: weapon by the CWC and thus by the US.
NO, it is considered illegal! Its classification does not change at all!
So how come you're also claiming that using WP (classified as an
incendiary AGENT) as a weapon DOES change the classification to
an incendiary WEAPON?
---
Merlyn LeRoy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 05:10:26 AM |
|
|
"Brian Westley" wrote
: "Bear" writes:
: >"Adam H." wrote
: >: So, you post all that and yet you still can't get by the fact that
: >: when WP is used against human targets, it is considered a chemical
: >: weapon by the CWC and thus by the US.
:
: >NO, it is considered illegal! Its classification does not change at all!
:
: So how come you're also claiming that using WP (classified as an
: incendiary AGENT) as a weapon DOES change the classification to
: an incendiary WEAPON?
I'm not.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 04:04:38 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 22:45:48 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Adam H." wrote
: So, you post all that and yet you still can't get by the fact that
: when WP is used against human targets, it is considered a chemical
: weapon by the CWC and thus by the US.
NO, it is considered illegal! Its classification does not change at all!
And yet I've proven that it does depending on how it's used. The CWC
is the authority and that's exactly what they say.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 04:06:02 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: And yet I've proven that it does depending on how it's used. The CWC
: is the authority and that's exactly what they say.
That is not what the CWC says!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 04:08:21 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:06:02 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Adam H." wrote
: And yet I've proven that it does depending on how it's used. The CWC
: is the authority and that's exactly what they say.
That is not what the CWC says!
Yes, it is. The CWC says that a weapon which is used to inflict
chemical harm on humans is considered to be a chemical weapon in that
use.
WP causes chemical burns and chemical toxicity. You do the math.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 04:10:42 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: Yes, it is. The CWC says that a weapon which is used to inflict
: chemical harm on humans is considered to be a chemical weapon in that
: use.
Let's see your source!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 04:15:25 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:10:42 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Adam H." wrote
: Yes, it is. The CWC says that a weapon which is used to inflict
: chemical harm on humans is considered to be a chemical weapon in that
: use.
Let's see your source!
I gave it to you. The CWC. Perhaps you should try reading.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 04:20:41 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: "Bear" wrote:
:
: >"Adam H." wrote
: >: Yes, it is. The CWC says that a weapon which is used to inflict
: >: chemical harm on humans is considered to be a chemical weapon in that
: >: use.
: >
: >Let's see your source!
:
: I gave it to you. The CWC.
Let's see the quote.
Perhaps you should try reading.
I did read what the CWC said about white phosphorus. It certainly didn't
agree with what you say.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 04:30:19 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:20:41 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Adam H." wrote
: "Bear" wrote:
:
: >"Adam H." wrote
: >: Yes, it is. The CWC says that a weapon which is used to inflict
: >: chemical harm on humans is considered to be a chemical weapon in that
: >: use.
: >
: >Let's see your source!
:
: I gave it to you. The CWC.
Let's see the quote.
Perhaps you should try reading.
I did read what the CWC said about white phosphorus. It certainly didn't
agree with what you say.
I see that you can't be arsed to look things up. Well, your ignorance
is not my problem.
Chemical weapons are defined as including toxic chemicals where used
for purposes prohibited under the convention. Uses dependent on the
toxic properties of chemicals as a method of warfare ARE PROHIBITED.
WP was used in Iraq to cause chemical burns. That is a prohibited use.
Of course, you won't go to
http://www.cwc.gov/treaty/articles/art-02_html and look that up.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 04:34:32 AM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: I see that you can't be arsed to look things up. Well, your ignorance
: is not my problem.
I looked it up moron. Like I said, what the CWC says doesn't match what you
say! So unless you can provide a direct quote supporting what you say, I
have no alternative but to believe what I read from the CWC.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 01:18:11 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:34:32 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Adam H." wrote
: I see that you can't be arsed to look things up. Well, your ignorance
: is not my problem.
I looked it up moron. Like I said, what the CWC says doesn't match what you
say! So unless you can provide a direct quote supporting what you say, I
have no alternative but to believe what I read from the CWC.
That WAS the CWC I condensed, as given in the URL. Now you're just
lying about what's there.
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended
for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the
types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death
or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals
specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of
the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in
connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in
subparagraph (b).
9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:
(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical
or other peaceful purposes;
(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related
to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against
chemical weapons;
(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical
weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of
chemicals as a method of warfare;
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
So, you're a fool AND a liar now. Too bad for you, I guess. Do you see
right in paragraph 1 where WP is a chemical weapon when it's used to
cause death or harm from the toxic chemical properties of phosphorus?
And paragraph 9, where it lays out what military purposes are NOT
prohibited?
Damn, you're stupid. You never even went to the URL I gave you.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 03:20:27 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: So, you're a fool AND a liar now.
No, you are!
: You never even went to the URL I gave you.
I did my own research!
These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW
agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.
Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high
concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a
chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use.
Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed as
chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class.
Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as
biological weapons. (http://www.opcw.org/)
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 03:30:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:20:27 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Adam H." wrote
: So, you're a fool AND a liar now.
No, you are!
: You never even went to the URL I gave you.
I did my own research!
These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be CW
agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.
Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high
concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a
chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their use.
Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed as
chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class.
Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as
biological weapons. (http://www.opcw.org/)
And yet the CWC plainly says that a weapon that is used to achieve its
effects through chemical means IS CONSIDERED A CHEMICAL WEAPON. When
WP is used as a chemical weapon IT IS ONE.
Really, it doesn't get more obvious than that, and your admission that
you haven't even read the CWC says more about your ignorance than I
ever could.
You can't refute the facts, no matter how hard you try.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 03:33:56 PM |
|
|
"Adam H."
: "Bear" wrote:
: >These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
: >
: >Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be
CW
: >agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.
: >Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high
: >concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a
: >chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their
use.
: >Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed
as
: >chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class.
: >Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as
: >biological weapons. (http://www.opcw.org/)
: You can't refute the facts, no matter how hard you try.
You are the one that is unsuccessfully trying to refute the facts. Also this
topic is not within the scope of the purpose of this newsgroup.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 03:42:39 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:33:56 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Adam H."
: "Bear" wrote:
: >These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
: >
: >Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to be
CW
: >agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.
: >Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high
: >concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a
: >chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their
use.
: >Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not classed
as
: >chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class.
: >Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as
: >biological weapons. (http://www.opcw.org/)
: You can't refute the facts, no matter how hard you try.
You are the one that is unsuccessfully trying to refute the facts. Also this
topic is not within the scope of the purpose of this newsgroup.
Lame dodge, again. *I* replied to *you on this matter.
You're done, son.
---
I bought a Venus Fly Trap today. I was going to name it
‘Republican’, but the fly trap is beneficial to the
environment. I’ll save that name - someday I might find
a plant that eats poor people and minorities.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 03:47:23 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." wrote
: "Bear" wrote:
: >"Adam H."
: >: "Bear" wrote:
: >: >These Military Chemicals are Not Considered to be Chemical Weapons
: >: >
: >: >Incendiary agents such as napalm and phosphorus are not considered to
be
: >CW
: >: >agents since they achieve their effect mainly through thermal energy.
: >: >Certain types of smoke screen may be poisonous in extremely high
: >: >concentrations but, nonetheless, smoke ammunition is not classed as a
: >: >chemical weapon since the poisonous effect is not the reason for their
: >use.
: >: >Plants, microorganisms, algae, etc. which produce toxins are not
classed
: >as
: >: >chemical weapons even if the produced toxins belong to that class.
: >: >Pathogenic microorganisms, mainly viruses and bacteria, are classed as
: >: >biological weapons. (http://www.opcw.org/)
: You're done, son.
Read the above quote! Good morning, good evening and good night Adam!
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn't a choice or act of will - like theism; it's a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 03:13:40 PM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in
news:fi0pn1t3q426o3ms929ku8t0vifj8g860j@4ax.com:
On Wed, 16 Nov 2005 23:34:32 -0500, "Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net>
wrote:
"Adam H." wrote
: I see that you can't be arsed to look things up. Well, your
: ignorance is not my problem.
I looked it up moron. Like I said, what the CWC says doesn't match
what you say! So unless you can provide a direct quote supporting what
you say, I have no alternative but to believe what I read from the
CWC.
That WAS the CWC I condensed, as given in the URL. Now you're just
lying about what's there.
1. "Chemical Weapons" means the following, together or separately:
(a) Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended
for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the
types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
(b) Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death
or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals
specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of
the employment of such munitions and devices;
(c) Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in
connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in
subparagraph (b).
9. "Purposes Not Prohibited Under this Convention" means:
(a) Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical
or other peaceful purposes;
(b) Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related
to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against
chemical weapons;
(c) Military purposes not connected with the use of chemical
weapons and not dependent on the use of the toxic properties of
chemicals as a method of warfare;
(d) Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes.
So, you're a fool AND a liar now. Too bad for you, I guess. Do you see
right in paragraph 1 where WP is a chemical weapon when it's used to
cause death or harm from the toxic chemical properties of phosphorus?
And paragraph 9, where it lays out what military purposes are NOT
prohibited?
Damn, you're stupid. You never even went to the URL I gave you.
http://www.snappingturtle.net/flit/archives/2005_11_16.html#005628
White Phosphorus and the Medal of Honor
I love this story.
It's not just the consistent misspelling of "phosphorus" throughout,
it's the complete ignorance of what WP (white phosphorus) shells are and
do on all sides of the issue.
On the anti- side, of course, you have accusations that WP is a
"chemical" weapon or an "illegal" one. It's not.* WP was heavily used in
the Second World War by the Allies, including Canada, against both
Germany and Japan**, for exactly the same reasons and missions it's
being used now. But yes, a WP artillery shell is a bad thing to have
land near you... not nearly as bad as a regular high-explosive artillery
shell of the same size, but certainly the next worst thing.
The job of those opposed would be much harder, of course, if the pro-
side had any more of a clue what they were talking about. The State
Department's retracted statement, that WP was "fired into the air at
night," is classic. It should go without saying that using a smoke shell
to try to light up a dark sky would be a failure... I guess only the
State Department could confuse phosphorus with magnesium, which is what
real illuminating rounds are made of.
*I've seen a lot of people claiming that the 1980 Incendiary Weapons
protocol of Geneva forbids the use of white phosphorus against
civilians. It does not. It forbids the use of "incendiaries," and
specifically excludes weapons like WP where the incendiary effect is a
secondary effect of smoke production (incendiary weapons by definition
are those weapons designed to create fires... WP occasionally will start
fires, but it's not very reliable in that role... generally it just
creates a lot of smoke). Whether the U.S. has signed it or not is
irrelevant.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up
for something, sometime in your life." -- W. Churchill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: Annex on Chemicals |
17 Nov 2005 03:27:08 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" wrote
: On the anti- side, of course, you have accusations that WP is a
: "chemical" weapon or an "illegal" one. It's not.* WP was heavily used in
: the Second World War by the Allies, including Canada, against both
: Germany and Japan**, for exactly the same reasons and missions it's
: being used now. But yes, a WP artillery shell is a bad thing to have
: land near you... not nearly as bad as a regular high-explosive artillery
: shell of the same size, but certainly the next worst thing.
:
: The job of those opposed would be much harder, of course, if the pro-
: side had any more of a clue what they were talking about. The State
: Department's retracted statement, that WP was "fired into the air at
: night," is classic. It should go without saying that using a smoke shell
: to try to light up a dark sky would be a failure... I guess only the
: State Department could confuse phosphorus with magnesium, which is what
: real illuminating rounds are made of.
:
: *I've seen a lot of people claiming that the 1980 Incendiary Weapons
: protocol of Geneva forbids the use of white phosphorus against
: civilians. It does not. It forbids the use of "incendiaries," and
: specifically excludes weapons like WP where the incendiary effect is a
: secondary effect of smoke production (incendiary weapons by definition
: are those weapons designed to create fires... WP occasionally will start
: fires, but it's not very reliable in that role... generally it just
: creates a lot of smoke). Whether the U.S. has signed it or not is
: irrelevant.
Appreciate the input.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
Being an atheist isn’t a choice or act of will — like theism; it’s a
consequence of what one knows and how one reasons.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
