|
Under the Geneva Conventions, which IMO in this area is completely subpar, a chemical weapon entails....
a. Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under the 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).
For the purpose of elaborating subparagraph (a), the Conventions go on to list non-prohibited purposes.
-Industrial, agricultural, research, medical, pharmaceutical or other peaceful purposes -Protective purposes, namely those purposes directly related to protection against toxic chemicals and to protection against chemical weapons -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 -Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes
Now, fully admitting that I don't know the real answer, it is possible that WP ordinance (usually grenades) don't fall under the Convention because their primary functions are signaling and screening, with an added benefit of showering any nearby enemies with particles heated to 5,000 degrees. There is also the matter of White Phosphorous not being a toxic agent, in that its combat effectiveness does not rely on producing a toxic reaction. The same is true of napalm: sure, if used effectively it can incinerate hundreds of people at once, but if it doesn't cause death through toxicity then it can't be classified as a chemical weapon.
The Conventions definitions of biological weapons are much clearer, though.
|