It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Everyday chemical warfare

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:17 AM
link   

en.wikipedia.org...

Pepper spray, also known as OC spray (from "Oleoresin Capsicum"), OC gas, and capsicum spray, is a lachrymatory agent (a chemical compound that irritates the eyes to cause tears, pain, and even temporary blindness) used in policing, riot control, crowd control, and personal self-defense, including defense against dogs and bears.[1][2]



en.wikipedia.org...

The active ingredient in pepper spray is capsaicin, which is a chemical derived from the fruit of plants in the Capsicum genus, including chilis. Extraction of oleoresin capsicum from peppers requires capsicum to be finely ground, from which capsaicin is then extracted using an organic solvent such as ethanol. The solvent is then evaporated, and the remaining waxlike resin is the oleoresin capsicum. An emulsifier such as propylene glycol is used to suspend the OC in water, and pressurized to make it aerosol in pepper spray.


Examples of modern chemical warfare

America - "Occupy UC Davis - Police pepper spraying and arresting students 11-18-11"


Australia - "Police Spray Tennis Fans at AUS OPEN ( SKY NEWS)"


Europe - "How police used CS spray at tax protest London 30.01.11"


There are more examples of chemical warfare than can be posted. The problem is here and now and will only deteriorate further.

Chemical weapon

en.wikipedia.org...

A chemical weapon (CW) is a device that uses chemicals formulated to inflict death or harm to human beings. They are classified as weapons of mass destruction, and have been "condemned by the civilised world". Chemical weapons have been used in past conflicts—and preparedness doctrine anticipates the potential for future use. Numerous international agreements are in force with regard to chemical weapons.



en.wikipedia.org...

The active ingredient in pepper spray is capsaicin, which is a Chemical derived from the fruit of plants in the Capsicum genus, including chilis



en.wikipedia.org...

Pepper spray is banned for use in war by Article I.5 of the Chemical Weapons Convention, which bans the use of all riot control agents in warfare whether lethal or less-than-lethal.[20]


Chemical Weapons Convention

en.wikipedia.org...

The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons.


"Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and on their destruction, Paris 13 January 1993"

www.icrc.org...

ARTICLE I

GENERAL OBLIGATIONS

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:

(a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;

(b) To use chemical weapons;

(c) To engage in any military preparations to use chemical weapons;

Continued on the article page.


Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare

www.un.org...

The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in war.


But only during war! Any other time you wish to confront another citizen of the planet and spray a chemical weapon in their face do it with gusto.


www.icrc.org...

Use of biological and chemical weapons According to customary international humanitarian law which is binding on all States and on all parties to an armed conflict, the use of biological and chemical weapons is prohibited.

This norm is based on the ancient taboo against the use in war of " plague and poison " , which has been passed down for generations in diverse cultures. It was most recently codified in the 1925 Geneva Protocol and subsequently in the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention and in the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. The great majority of States are parties to these three treaties. The prohibitions based on these texts cover not only the use, but also the development, production and stockpiling of biological and chemical weapons.

It should be emphasized that in situations of armed conflict this absolute prohibition applies to all biological and chemical agents, whether labelled " lethal " or " non-lethal " . For example, even the use of riot control agents which is permitted for domestic riot control purposes is prohibited in situations of armed conflict.


Another fun chemical to inflict on those around you is tear gas


en.wikipedia.org...

Tear gas, formally known as a lachrymatory agent or lachrymator (from lacrima meaning "tear" in Latin), is a non-lethal chemical weapon that stimulates the corneal nerves in the eyes to cause tears, pain, and even blindness.


The absurdity will never cease and so an absurd question: Is it correct for those in authoritative positions whether security, law enforcement or other to take part in chemical warfare?

Pdf paper on the various types of chemical weapons

EDIT: Some really good articles with further information.

blogs.plos.org...

www.ncjrs.gov...

articles.latimes.com...

www.scribd.com...
edit on 6-8-2012 by usernamehere because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:33 AM
link   


The absurdity will never cease and so an absurd question: Is it correct for those in authoritative positions whether security, law enforcement or other to take part in chemical warfare?


This thread is absurd. Comparing OC spray to ACTUAL chemical weapons is ridiculous. It's no fun getting maced, but it's nowhere near mustard gas or things that are actually considered a chemical weapon.


They are classified as weapons of mass destruction, and have been "condemned by the civilised world".


Do you need weapon of mass destruction defined? OC spray gives you an ouch for a little while, then goes away. GO look up what actual chemical weapons do to the human body. I think it's disgusting you would compare the two. It's an injustice to all the people that have been killed or maimed by REAL chemical weapons.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Do you need weapon of mass destruction defined? OC spray gives you an ouch for a little while, then goes away.

Aww Domo, you sound like the CNN lady that said, Whats the problem? Its just a food additive.

You ever been sprayed with it? And if its so mild then why can't protesters defend themselves with it against the police? Now thats a serious crime.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:46 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


I have been sprayed with it. I've also gotten secondary blasts and it really is not fun. It was awful. Comparing it to nerve agents and ACTUAL weapons of mass destruction is idiotic. It's like comparing getting punched in the nose to being shot in the nose.

Chemical warfare is horrifying, getting maced is painful for a few minutes. It doesn't kill you. Every cop gets maced before they can carry it. People in the military get maced. People get maced all the time. It's not the same as VX or Sarin.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
I will have to do some digging but there are specific chemicals excluded from the rules - teargas I believe to be among them. But,moreover, restrictions on chemical warfare cover exactly that - warfare - and not fugiture or suspect apprehension or crowd control.

I've actually been sprayed with OC and it's very painful but was less than lethal and the symptoms abated rapidly. There are chemical and biological agents galore that are not nearly as non-damaging.

Also, one could take your argument one step further and say that high fructose corn syrup or even refined sugar could be categorized in this manner as they are technically dangerous chemicals...

I am currenty busy in real world dealings, but I will try to make a note to self to read up on some of the source information and find if these thoughts do apply to the difference between a less than lethal crowd control substance and anything that might be deemed as a chemical warfare agent.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 





I've actually been sprayed with OC and it's very painful but was less than lethal and the symptoms abated rapidly.


It's really not a fun experience. I think I stopped snotting and dripping out of my eyes (looked like the front of my shirt got hosed down) about 20 minutes the two times I got directly face molested.

OC spray is not fun, but it doesn't shut down your central nervous system or leave you horribly disfigured and unable to breathe correctly for the rest of your life.

I'll make a deal with anyone that wants to call BS on what I'm saying. You can take a big whiff of nerve gas, I'll get sprayed in the face with OC. I'll be fine within the hour, you'll be dead or wishing you were.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Chemical warfare is horrifying, getting maced is painful for a few minutes. It doesn't kill you. Every cop gets maced before they can carry it. People in the military get maced. People get maced all the time. It's not the same as VX or Sarin.

It may be less than lethal. And that is of course the argument the government uses to justify using gases or "sprays", rubber bullets and batons (instead of "real" bullets or baseball bats). But is that really the response we should illicit for civil protests? And if they are OK, then I say let the protesters have at least the same armament in case the police themselves "get out of control" (which never happens).

It seems that the new response to any civil disobedience is a repressive "less than lethal" battery of responses.

I guess the alternative would be the peaceable gathering of civilians to be interviewed by the media and file for redress of grievances, but that is not the case anymore in America, now is it?



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:13 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


That is a very valid statement. But the OP cites International law and not civil or internal issues. Crowd control is a necessary thing sometimes. You can Google "riots" and find a host of times when group hysteria led to situations where something had to be done for the public good.

I do agree that this is a slipperly slope and difficult issue. Peacable demonstration is our right... it's our job to make sure our elected officials understand the difference between legal gatherings or protests and riots.

Having said that... if I find myself attending a protest and I am fired upon, I'll take rubber bullets over real ones any day of the week.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 

I hear you on the slippery slope ... "crowd control"? Or, "less than war"?




posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Law enforcement has the legal (color of law) authority to kill you with a chemical or biological weapon.


TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 32 > § 1520a.
Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents.

(a) Prohibited activities
(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or
(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b) Exceptions: Subject to subsections the prohibition in subsection
(a) of this section does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.


(e) “Biological agent” defined
In this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—
(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;

(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or
(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.


www.law.cornell.edu...
edit on 6-8-2012 by METACOMET because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
It's not about you and your tremendous ability to endure and survive a pepper spray attack. It is about the whole of society including those whom have died and those who will. This is the exact attitude I am referencing in the OP. It's like gate-way drugs each little exception is a step toward full blown addiction. Now it's pepper spray, which are beyond the levels of the treaties, tomorrow it's.....

Even now one could amass these supposedly innocuous weapons and create something of disastrous scale.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:24 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


So make a thread about what you consider excessive force. Comparing OC spray to nerve gas is ridiculous. OC spray is not a weapon of mass destruction. It is not intended to kill people. I will debate the merits of macing protesters and breaking a few arms to keep order in another thread, this thread is comparing OC spray to chemical warfare. The chemicals used in chemical warfare are intended to kill. OC spray is not.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


do you know what the poilice used in the past in stead of mace? battons. Battons can do a lot more damage then mace also have killed way more people. sore eyes is better then broken limbs and missing teeth



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by usernamehere
 


I do see and sympathize with your point. And in a perfect world such measures as force would not be necessary. But we happen to live in a world where people sometimes become so wrapped up in their own thoughts that they neglect to care for the safety of others. Just having police technically means that some innocent will be accosted, shot, hurt, arrested, convicted, etc. But the alternative is exponentially worse.

It's not a pretty answer because it's not a pretty world.

~Heff



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:33 AM
link   



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:36 AM
link   
reply to post by usernamehere
 


You think that pepper spray is a gateway to cops using nerve agents on people? I'm just amazed by this thread, and amazed anyone is defending your ridiculous assertions.

I guess all those Grandmothers, college students, nurses, etc. that carry mace are just trying to set up the rest of us for gassing.

I think the only slippery slope here is being climbed by fools and crazies attempting to escape the men with white suits that will obviously come a knocking soon. I hope they bring OC.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


So make a thread about what you consider excessive force. Comparing OC spray to nerve gas is ridiculous.

I'm not comparing the two. There is no comparison. And I believe this thread is about the use of "sprays" on protesters as well. Whether that should be or is legal or not. At least that is what all the OP videos reflect. So thank you but I don't feel the need to go anywhere else with my arguments.

Oh and of course what the police do is legal. I don't think any officers have been arrested for any of their repressive regime actions. And I think they are overstepping their bounds as well. Occupy should have revealed that for everyone to see.

The only difference between the hostile actions of the police during "Occupy" and the civil riots of the 60's is their use of dogs and firehouses back then and the use of sprays and rubber bullets today. Otherwise same repression, different day.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


Chemical warfare as is covered in the OP need not be intended to kill that is ignorant. The degree of lethality is not completely dependent on the substance but also the one attacked, biologically everyone is different. While one might endure some sessions with a chemical compound designed to incapacitate, another with respiratory problems will keel in an instant.

I have never shared your point of view that the weapons used in society are dependent upon the degree of lethality, I consider all weaponry abhorrent. And to argue whether it is a chemical weapon is ridiculous and a perfect example of absurdity. The question is not whether it is or is not a chemical weapon, that is blatantly obvious, but whether it is correct for them to be in use.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Domo1
 


You are the epitome of absurdity. I am simply asking people whether they think it appropriate these weapons are in use and highlighting the fineline we walk in there use. Semantics of lethality or speculation as to whom it might be a gate-way for are beyond the scope of this discourse. No more time for you.



posted on Aug, 6 2012 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by usernamehere
 



They are classified as weapons of mass destruction


OC spray is not. That was an external quote you used.

Yes it's a chemical and it is a weapon. You know I wasn't arguing that. You compared the use of OC spray to the type of chemical weapon that is engineered to inflict death or serious bodily harm.

I think it's disgusting you would compare the two, and is a disservice to all those that have suffered or died or both at the hands of things such as VX.

If you think they are closely related, I will gladly get maced while you take a small hit of Sarin. One is painful for a little while, the other kills you. One is intended to kill, the other is intended to save lives.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join