I’ve chosen Skunk Works because I will be leaving a few personal opinions that I’d never be able to verify.
However those opinions are not the full focus of the thread.
So I dunno what I was inspired by to make this one...
I just had a passing thought of a few things I’ve heard recently about Laser Weapons causing the devastating Cali Fires (probably worth a thread
itself, but I’ve little knowledge on the theory as of yet), and my mind wandered as I started wondering about Warfare weapons/methods that are
banned in conflict.
And that thought then led to me pondering banned experimentation to.
So I’ll list a few I’ve come across.
I encourage you to add any you are aware of to.
The first on the list is Weather Manipulation.
It opened for signature on 18 May 1977 in Geneva and entered into force on 5 October 1978. The Convention bans weather warfare, which is the use
of weather modification techniques for the purposes of inducing damage or destruction.
Personally, I’m not so sure this particular Geneva restriction has been fully adhered to.
I’d find it hard to believe that the Weather has never once been manipulated in an effort to assault a foreign nation.
I’ll not speculate on who may have done so, as that’s just an inflammatory direction to take this.
But again, I certainly can’t accept it has not been used even a single time by someone.
Where I become confused as to the legality of such use, is if the ban only applies in times of an officially declared war effort.
Outside of warfare it may be fair game. But I’m not 100% sure of that.
An interesting ban agreement nonetheless.
The way it could escalate if it was a common practice is likely as devastating as any other weapon humanity could conjure.
The second on the list is Laser Weapons.
Lasrick writes Despite the UN's 1995 Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, the world is moving closer to laser weapons in both military and law
enforcement situations that can cause temporary and even permanent blindness.
I’d agree with this one, to be honest.
Whether this (or any) UN Protocol is legally binding is fairly unlikely.
But it doesn’t seem like a practice of a Military based on Defence...
I’m not sure there is any legitimate need for anyone on the battlefield to just blind a target.
I don’t think Laser Weapon usage has been put into practice by any Military yet, to blind people at least.
There is many more uses for Laser Weapons beyond maiming people.
So a blanket ban would be very unlikely.
Again, this one I can agree with.
The final weapon I will list, the dreaded Space Based Weapons.
The Outer Space Treaty represents the basic legal framework of international space law. Among its principles, it bars states party to the treaty
from placing weapons of mass destruction in orbit.
Pretty self explanatory really.
And aside from saying I’ve never seen anything to suggest it’s been violated, it’s another ban I agree with.
I’m not sure anyone wants that sort of problem.
So now a little detour into the scientific.
The first is Unethical Human Experimentation.
An article quote is not really necessary for this one, as I’m sure it is pretty easily understood.
Honestly, I’d love to say this died with the Nazis and Imperial Japan, but I’m not confident of that at all.
Depending on your bent, it could be argued Medical trials, such as testing of new medicine in mental health, are considered unethical.
My experience leads me to that conclusion.
But I guess what constitutes “unethical” has a fine line lawfully.
Good ban, I think.
The final ban I’ve decided to list, isn’t actually a ban (with an asterisk).
There is also no federal law prohibiting reproductive cloning. The FDA has stated that it believes it has jurisdiction over the process, but that
does not make the process illegal. In fact, someone could clone a human being in the US without the FDA's permission and it still would not be
The confusion is the idea that the FDA claims jurisdiction, which implies any such process outside of their control is likely banned.
I couldn’t say either way if this has been done.
But I wouldn’t rule it out.
There is many reasons one could consider Human Cloning a good ban. That I can think of anyways.
However there maybe people out there who can point towards some sort of benefit from the practice that justifies no ban at all.
What do you think, guys?
Should any of these be banned?
Making the right choice?
Or ruling out something with potential?
It’s definitely subjective.
Fun fact I learned while reading up;
Tear gas is banned in conflict, but not in law enforcement. No idea why.
Question I’m left with after reading up;
I’ve no idea how nuclear weapons are not among the banned weapons. Seems so bizarre.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading.