The Secretary of War, Rumsfeld (what the heck is he defending against?) has issued a statement to the Iraqi military that any officer who orders the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction, will be tried as a war criminal. This implies that the use of WoMD is a criminal act even in war. A WoMD is made solely and primarily for war. its function is no less than what ist supposed to do, kill large numbers of people indescriminately for the purpose of bringing about a politcal end to a military conflict. It is Military terror weapon. It was attempted by the Nazis against England and used successfully by the Americans against Japan.
The question now becomes, is the use of any Weapon of Mass Destruction (by anyone) considered a war crime? Wouldnt that also mean that retaliation using another WoMD be an equal war crime? Why is the use of WoMD a war crime?
What WMD did the Nazis attempt to use? I always thought Hitler was against WMD because of his experience with gas in WWI. I could be wrong though. I don’t think using WMD is a war crime, and Rumsfeld should keep his mouth shut. Whether you gas a city or fire bomb a city (Tokyo?), people gets killed. Whether or not death comes from a single vial, or in thousands of discrete 500lb packages seems, at best, irrelevant.
Good god, it is right there in his OP, not more than in inch from your post. I’ll quote it for you so you can find it.
I was unaware of the Nazis attempting or using WMD against England. If they did, I’d like to know more. That is all. It isn’t a big deal. Be a good Owl, and do try to keep up with the class.
In relative terms of technology of that era, I would consider the V1 buzzbombs and V2 rockets as WoMD, But you guys are hijacking the OP.
Why is using WoMD considered a war crime? Just because Donald Rumsfeld and the US says so? These weapons are meant to kill soldiers and civilian alike. It is a hideously barbaric method of war.
V1 and V2s were WOMD. They weren’t biological, nuclear, or chemical. They might’ve been terror weapons, but so was city bombing, and I wouldn’t call B17s WOMD.
(Chemical weapons, for all their nastiness, deliver a somewhat iffy tactical advantage anyway. Very dependent on wind & weather, for one thing. In some situations, they’ll contaminate the objective you’re trying to take. They might last for months, and they’re really bad at knowing friend from foe. )
The Hague convention was made in 1907 but World War I happened after that and I remember a significant amount of use of Mustard gas in that war but I do not recall any war crimes as to their specific use.
According to the Hague conventions regarding declaration of war, the US in notifying the world and Saddam that military action will occur after a specific date, has made the proper and legal steps to engage Iraq in this war.
So are you saying that anyone using Nerve gas and Biologicals in a war are guilty of War crimes. Well then, why does the US have stockpiles of both?
X~Slayer(ALE) I apologize if you thought I was hijacking. I think I misunderstood the OP, I read it as asking, more or less, should the use of WMD be a war crime? I see now that you are asking something else.
There are some distinctions that need to be made here. Weapons can be classified according to legality vs. illegality, and conventionality vs. WMD status. Some conventional weapons are illegal. Some weapons of mass destruction (nonconventional) are legal.
Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) include nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) weapons. For political purposes (definitely not academic purposes), I’ve seen people try to broaden the definition to include conventional weapons such as land mines and assault rifles, but this is hyperbole and demagoguery, IMO.
Conventional weapons include full metal jacket bullets and high explosives, land mines and machine guns. Conventional weapons are not necessarily considered WMDs even when they become very large or relatively “massively destructive”. A big conventional bomb is exactly that.
As far as legality is concerned for WMDs, biological weapons (anthrax, smallpox, etc.) and chemical weapons (mustard gas, nerve agent, etc.) are illegal (as someone already pointed out), but I’m pretty sure nukes are legal under international law. (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.)
Some conventional weapons are illegal such as dum-dum or expanding bullets. I always thought notched bayonets were illegal too, but that may just be an urban myth from “All’s Quiet on the Western Front.”
Banned weapons are typically banned because at some point a convention of nations determened that they are an unusual and horrible way for a soldier to die. They are banned in an effort to control, not eliminate, the horribleness of war.
I’m pretty sure responsive use of otherwise illegal weapons is legal (e.g., if they lob chem at you, you can fire chem back at them). Sorry, no cite, that’s just how I remember it from my former military days.
But the US doesn’t stock B&C weapons for offensive use, so if US troops are hit by B&C, and a conventional response is insufficient, then the US has always reserved the right to escalate directly to nukes.
As far as I understand, the biggest conventional weapon you can build (e.g., not nuke, chem or bio, no white phosphorous, just high explosives) is still not a WMD. The V-rockets were not WMD’s because they were conventional. As far as I know, under the definitions I’ve seen used, WMD status has nothing to do with the terror the weapon instills in civilian populations.
If B&C, then because international treaties have made them illegal. If N, then because Rumsfeld doesn’t want US troops to get hit by them.
Defensive research is the primary legitimate reason.
Defensive use is also a possibility, I suppose.
To the extent that the US stockpiles these weapons, I have strong doubts that they are in any form to be useable against an enemy. It would take quite some time to create an offensive chemical or biological weapons capablity. You can’t just make these things and leave them in storage for thirty years and then pull them out and use them.
The really insidious question is: Why is the US stockpiling helium in the Strategic Helium Reserve? Hmmmm???
So what youre saying, il Topo, is that the WoMD that Rumsfeld implicitly refers to are actually B&C weapons only. Should Iraq use any of these weapons, its a big no-no. Should Saddam surprise everyone in the world by setting off a nuke at Baghdad Airport, its not a war crime.
Use of B&C weapons is a war crime if used offensively but marginally ok if used in a retaliatory strike (which presupposes that all civilians are dead and/or gone from the first strike).
Kinda greyish but acceptable. Hope we dont have to debate this in actuality. Thanks for clearing that up.
I think that’s right. No need to worry about Iraq using nukes first. Let’s face it, if Iraq uses nukes agains US troops, the gloves come off, and Iraq becomes a glass highway between Iran an Jordan.
Yes. Although they may surprise me, that doesn’t seem to be too much of a concern now, for a variety of potential reasons. Then again, a regime which feels comfortable using pregnant women as suicide bombers is capable of using mustard gas in the Baghdad city suburbs.
…not a war crime, but no need to try anyone later either since there won’t be anyone.
I’ve often said that the worse thing for the Iraqi troops to see must be retreating US soldiers.
Purplefloyd: The US doesn’t have “so many of them.” The US only has chemical and biological agents for research purposes (e.g., to determine how best to defend against their use, but not necessarily to lob them back at the enemy).
Nukes aren’t covered under any international convention as a crime, so the US stockpiles a lot of them for deterrence purposes and maybe even to lob at an enemy that uses WMDs which we don’t have.
This press release from January 22, 1996, gives details of the US chemical weapons stockpile.
Here is a map showing where the weapons were stored.
It in no way can be claimed that the weapons were for research purposes. This press release from November 30, 2000, refers to the destruction of 13,000 land mines filled with VX.
The destruction of the weapons is still taking place. According to Chemical & Engineering News, trials were to start last October on a new method of disposal:
The current focus of the US chemical and biological weapons program is on “non-lethal” agents. But, as the 119 deaths in the Russian hostage crisis showed, non-lethal in theory doesn’t mean non-lethal in practice.
I am of the opinion that ministries of defense world wide should rename themselves back to ministries of war. Ministry of defense isn’t as much newspeak as ministry of peace, but it’s definitely a step into that direction.
"This implies that the use of WoMD is a criminal act even in war."
As spiny norman pointed out, the conventions disallow the use of biological and chemical weapons.
"It was attempted by the Nazis against England"
Other people already stated, that the V1 and V2 weren’t weapons of mass destruction, so that’s a bit misleading. However, I have heard that in the field gas was used when retreating to prevent the other side from advancing and overrunning. Sorry, I don’t have a cite to this as it is just something I have heard and should be treated accordingly.
"and used successfully by the Americans against Japan."
I disagree. But all the “what if” scenarios about a land invasion of Japan aside, in this case WoMD were used against civilian targets. Irrespective of the character of WoMD per se, this is in itself a war crime, just like Harris’s raids on German civil installations was.
So, while the use of nuclear weapons may not be a war crime in itself, a country has to very carefully choose the target for a nuke. If it’s a military installation or - say - a fleet at sea, that’s “ok”, but using them on cities is using them against civilians, which is afaik a war crime.
Indeed, the US policy was not always as it now is. For a time during the Cold War, I think all weapons were explored as a matter a survival. (Whether or not such survival measures were necessary is a topic for another thread.)
Correct me if I’m wrong, but it was my understanding that these weapons (which were clearly made for use in battle, as you say) have not actually been in battle ready condition for some time now now and have been scheduled for destruction (by 2004 according to your 1996 DOD release). I therefore discounted them from the active arsenal of the US. The DOD release you cited states that declassifying the existence of the weapons is intended to speed their destruction, which is mandated to be completed by 2004.
I can say that during my US military expierience through the late 80’s and all through the 90’s, I was never trained in the offensive use of chemical weapons, and I did not know anyone who was so trained. Our sole chemical training was defensive.
Also, as the DOD release states:
These are the research agents of which I spoke, which I considered to be the only actively used agents possessed by the US.
I don’t believe the international conventions which ban chemical weapons differentiate between lethal and non-lethal weapons. According to my military training, it is illegal to use even non-lethal chemical agents such as CS gas (tear gas) against enemy combatants. Use of such agents against cilivilian populations for riot control is another matter. However, I personally believe it is a mistake for the US military to get into the business of non-lethally gassing anyone, civilian or not. But I don’t get paid to make that call. (BTW, the US military does use non-lethal tear gas to train it’s soldiers in mask confidence and use.)
In response to my question about the helium reserve…
Now that is interesting. I knew the program was started in the earlier part of the century to ensure a supply of helium for the military’s dirigible program, which has since gone into decline to say the least. I figured it was continued as part of the annual pork obtained for Texas by that state’s senators and representatives. But I suppose the point about losing helium through the atmosphere could be a real problem. I never thought of that. Would be nice to have some around for fusion research, that’s for sure.
