Spraying the enemy with a substance which will attract large preditors to come to them and eat them.
I’d guess since the actual killing agent is biological, then it would be biological warfare. You could also call it biochemical warfare, too, I imagine.
Biological, because most large preditors are not particularly interested in eating either chemicals or bullets.
So it can be considered biological warfare though you didn’t use anything biological, just took advantage of the natural surroundings?
I think it would be either chemical warfare or, as Q.E.D. says, biochemical warfare. Certainly if you sprayed them with a substance that caused their immune system to stop functioning so they could be attacked by microbes, it would be chemical warfare. So I don’t think it stops being at least partly chemical warfare when the substance causes them to be eaten by bears.
When the Russians strapped explosives to dogs and trained them to run under German vehicles in Stalingrad, 1942, was that conventional or biological?
One reason that you don’t hear as much about the Red Air Force as you do about the RAF and U.S. Eighth is that neither side on the Eastern Front was able to achieve such dominating air superiority in the East as America and Britain did in the West. The Eastern Front covered a far bigger area than the Western Front, and neither side had enough aircraft to control the air all along the line.
The Germans in the West would joke bitterly that they could recognize the three air forces flying overhead by their color: if they were silver, they were American, if they were green camouflage, they were British, and if they weren’t there at all, they were German! The Red Air Force was never able to achieve this kind of dominance on the Eastern front because of the large area they had to cover and because Russia put a higher priority on manufacturing the world’s best tanks than on manufacturing aircraft.
Although the animals doing to eating are obviously biological, it would depend on what the substance sprayed on them was. If it was an artificially produced pheramone(sp?) analog use to attract the unnamed animals then it would be chemical. If it was an organic compound used to make the enemy tasty such as whipped cream then its biological.
p.s. not to hijack or anything but which animals would you use. I vote for wolverines.
According to the Chemical Weapons Convention, a chemical weapon is defined as:
The OP’s weapon doesn’t seem to fit the definition of a “toxic chemical”.
If you must know, polar bears.
The ‘stuff’ is basically something one might employ to trap one, just something that smells really tasty to a bear, and the scent os hard to get off and carries a long distance.
It doesn’t fit the def. above of chemical, anyone got one for biological?
I don’t think it can be strictly classified simply because nobody would seriously think of doing it. It might fall into chemical simply because everything is a chemical, therefore that spray is a chemical weapon. I think that’s the best classification, in fact: The weapon the aircraft (say) are spraying on the enemy is a chemical, not a fine mist of radioisotopes (nuclear) or a potent virus (biological).
As for the defintion of `Toxic chemical’: It has an effect on the bears’ life processes, which in turn have an effect on the victim’s life processes. 