# Interesting question regarding the legal use of WoMD

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-question-regarding-the-legal-use-of-womd/166356>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 4, 2003, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-question-regarding-the-legal-use-of-womd/166356 "2003-04-04T01:57:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-question-regarding-the-legal-use-of-womd/166356/21 "2003-04-08T15:01:50Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by il Topo \*  
> **Great post, Desmostylus**.

Thanks.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by il Topo \*  
> **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.**

As far as I know, you are absolutely correct.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by il Topo \*  
> **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.**

Again, as far as I know, you are absolutely correct.

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by il Topo \*  
> \*\*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. \*\*

I agree. 🙂

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![il\_Topo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/eb9ed0/32.png) [@il\_Topo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/il_Topo)\
**Post date:** [April 8, 2003, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-question-regarding-the-legal-use-of-womd/166356/22 "2003-04-08T15:31:22Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Optihut \*  
> …in [the case of Japan] 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. \*\*

Of course you are correct that _targeting civilians_ with weapons of any kind is illegal, but even foreseeable _but unintended_ civilian deaths are not war crimes. In the days before smart bombs, wars could not be waged without such a loophole. That is why we have the concept of collateral damage, where the intent of the targeter determines whether a crime has been committed, not the effect of the action.

Were you aiming at that military base in the middle of the city (or at those weapons storage bunkers surrounding the mosque in the suburbs)?..or were you purposely targeting those civilians?

And even if a city doesn’t have a military base in or near it, it probably has several defense industry facilities, and if not that, perhaps some power generation facilities which power defense industry facilities elsewhere. It’s this gray area which allows people some weasel room.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/interesting-question-regarding-the-legal-use-of-womd/166356.md?page=1)