A Short List Of Banned Weapons And Experiments.

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.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

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.

tech.slashdot.org...


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.

en.m.wikipedia.org...


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.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

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 necessarily illegal

ipscell.com...

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.



Anyways...
If you made it this far, thanks for reading.
Peace.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

It's been in the news this week how America is designing mini-nukes - Another Step Toward Armageddon. Smaller “Usable” Nuclear Weapons.

They should be banned. Why? Because the line against using nukes needs to be a mile wide. Mini-nukes turn it in to a hair's breadth thing. Nations who then think they can use nukes will do so. When that day comes, the nation will believe it has an authority others don't have, but will want.

A new nuclear arms race and 'mini' nukes being deployed in ME hot zones. What could possibly go wrong for the rest of the world?

I'm worried about the nano-horde with personal ID targeting.

a reply to: Hazardous1408

Ok

1) How is blinding someone with a laser worse than killing them?

2) how is a lader blinding weapon useless for defence? Surely a blinded enemy cant attack you?

a reply to: Theprodicalson

Well we used them in the Falklands war (UK).
Not widely known but we had them mounted on bikes when the Migs came in low.

originally posted by: UKWO1Phot
a reply to: Theprodicalson

Well we used them in the Falklands war (UK).
Not widely known but we had them mounted on bikes when the Migs came in low.

Good.

We should use all weapons avaliable to us in defence.

Dont wanted to get killed or maimed, dont invade another countrys territory.

a reply to: Theprodicalson

how is a lader blinding weapon useless for defence? Surely a blinded enemy cant attack you?

I have no idea why you have asked me that because I didn’t say Blinding Laser Weapons were useless at all.

But here is one reason they’re largely useless...
The notion that we would want soldiers armed with a weapon that limits their target on an advancing threat to only the optics area, is absolutely ludicrous.

It would be a challenge for even the most decorated sharpshooter.
The average squadie under pressure would be at a big disadvantage against a regular firearm.

How is blinding someone with a laser worse than killing them?

As a species, we’ve mostly come to accept the fact that our military forces are going to kill people. We do expect that to be limited to justifiable actions when the situation arises. Even soldiers themselves pride themselves on this mentality.

As such, a large percentage of military members will readily admit that they do not even want to kill anyone, that it is a terrible thing to do to anyone, but still sometimes must be done.


When comes a time where soldiers want to blind people, that goes beyond sacrifice for the greater good into the territory of viscous sadism.

That is why blinding people is worse than killing them.
And I thoroughly reject any desensitisation towards maiming instead of just ending the threat humanely.


Besides, as long as metallic ammunition and conventional firearms exist for defence, there is literally no single reason why Blinding Laser Weapons would be necessary.
They wouldn’t be nearly as effective as the current guns used by those in the service.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Hazardous1408

It's been in the news this week how America is designing mini-nukes - Another Step Toward Armageddon. Smaller “Usable” Nuclear Weapons.

They should be banned. Why? Because the line against using nukes needs to be a mile wide. Mini-nukes turn it in to a hair's breadth thing. Nations who then think they can use nukes will do so. When that day comes, the nation will believe it has an authority others don't have, but will want.

A new nuclear arms race and 'mini' nukes being deployed in ME hot zones. What could possibly go wrong for the rest of the world?

Banning something that every evil county on this planet wants will only limit law abiding countries.

Nukes should be legal in all yields, small or giga!

...I'm joking of course

a reply to: Hazardous1408

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,

Puhlease, poor maintenance of power transmission lines, failure to clear tree branches from touching live wires during hi winds is what caused the fire storms.

"laser" brains, lol