So here we go, again, hypocrisy with the biological agents, aren´t they another saddam? There is no reason for research such a destructive weapons, unless u want to kill lots of people, again, it´s impossible to kill a lots of people without a RATIONAL REASON....


Austin and Hamburg (8 May 2003) - The United States Army has developed and patented a new grenade that it says can be used to wage biowarfare. This is in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention, which explicitly prohibits development of bioweapons delivery devices.

US Patent #6,523,478, granted on February 25th 2003, covers a "rifle launched non lethal cargo dispenser" that is designed to deliver aerosols, including – according to the patent’s claims - “crowd control agents, biological agents, [and] chemical agents...”

The development of biological weapons delivery devices is absolutely prohibited - “in any circumstance” - by Article I of the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, to which the US is a party. There is no exemption from this prohibition, neither for defensive purposes nor for so called non-lethal agents.

Rest of the article:

www.sunshine-project.org...

You should get a second opinion. Ask yourself this...

Isn't odd that they're saying that a nation (USA) that produces NO biological weapons, is somehow violating the bioweapons convention?

I think it is very odd, and you should to.

*EDIT* In continuation, under this article's claim, tear gas canisters are a violation, which every nation uses.

[Edited on 14-5-2003 by ELSFAW]

patft.uspto.gov.../netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6523478.WKU.&OS=PN/6523478&RS=PN/ 6523478

I did not finish reading but it seems to be that YES, go and check it out, it´s a patent, it is known and legal, and if u read how the weapon works...

Further research yeilds the passage in discussion.



Article I

Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never in any circumstances to develop, produce, stockpile or otherwise acquire or retain:

(1) Microbial or other biological agents, or toxins whatever their origin or method of production, of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes;

(2) Weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict.

This passage is obviously too vague, because I can use water balloons as biologic delivery systems.

Hell someone just after 9/11 used mail as a bioweapons dilivery system...are you going to ban mail now too?

Yeesh, you anti-americans turn over every rock don't you? Too bad it's all spotless.

Resources:

www.state.gov...


I'm not sure exactly what to think though, I don't think the USA should be hounded over this, because after all, the human body is a "biological weapon dilivery system".

Really Article I section 2 of this convention is just too vague to be legally binding. And that I think is where the US and other nations are stepping in and complaining.

The BWC has cost a LOT of money to medical researchers because of such vague definitions.

[Edited on 14-5-2003 by ELSFAW]

Also it is interesting to note though that Iraq is also a signer of the BWC, so we should use that knowledge in judging Saddam when further information of his BW facilities become available.

I want to say though, I think the title of this post is making too much of what it really is.

It's just the question of "can this dilivery system be used for BWs and so is it a violation?"

Much like the old, "It's not drugs, it's medicinal" debate ... lol

[Edited on 14-5-2003 by ELSFAW]