Panel Discussion
9 November 2005
Hague Seminar
In Conjunction with the 10th Annual Conference of States Parties to the CWC
Sponsored by the Scientists Working Group on CBW, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

 

PROS: Some Advantages

  1. Prevent unnecessary loss of life by providing a less-lethal option in certain combat situations or in case of dangerous rioting by POWs or civilians.
  2. Permit discrimination between terrorists/combatants and noncombatants before applying lethal force or taking prisoners in situations such as hostage rescue, urban combat or search and seizure operations.
  3. Facilitate compliance with the requirements of the Law of Armed Conflict for discrimination and proportionality, and minimize unnecessary suffering.  The use of incapacitants can be distinguished from the use of lethal chemical weapons because in the latter case the victims are dead.
  4. Facilitate transport of resisting POWs.
  5. Facilitate attack on a concealed enemy without destroying buildings/equipment.
  6. Facilitate silent disabling of an enemy during covert operations.
  7. Facilitate the live capture of an opponent or group of opponents.
  8. Provide weapon redundancy so that the most effective weapon can be employed in each situation.  Potential adversaries may not be treaty signatories.  Even if they are, treaties provide a false sense of security; all have been broken.  All slopes are slippery; chemical weapons are not unique. 
  9. Setting aside theoretical abstraction, if your children were held hostage, what weapons would you want their rescuers to have?

 

Cons: Some Problems

  1. The CWC prohibits possession of toxic chemicals, including incapacitants, except where intended for purposes not prohibited by the Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes.  “Law enforcement including domestic riot control purposes” is a purpose not prohibited.
  2. Historically, “non-lethal” chemical weapons have been used in conjunction with lethal weapons as force multipliers, resulting in more, not less, killing.
  3. Chemical incapacitants are no less lethal than gunfire; aerosol dosage can’t be controlled in large areas.
  4. Known chemical incapacitants are likely to leave many surviving victims with severe, long-term health damage, which may be worse than death.
  5. Terrorists, rioters. etc. will soon acquire protection, .e.g., gas masks, making non-involved civilians the primary victims and spurring an arms race to develop new agents and new countermeasures.
  6. Historically, the use of riot control agents has led to the use of lethal chemical weapons.
  7. Development of incapacitants, regardless of purpose, makes them potentially available for use in warfare, terrorism, crime, interrogation, torture, suppression of dissent and other forms of political control.  In time, the agents will be widely acquired and more lethal variants may be developed.
  8. Permitting the use of chemical incapacitants for certain purposes would justify the development and possession of delivery systems that could also be used in combat and would be suitable for delivery of lethal chemicals as well, thereby nullifying the purpose of the CWC “to exclude completely the possibility of the use of chemical weapons” by eliminating them.
  9. Permitting development of chemical incapacitants for certain purposes would provide cover for covert development of lethal chemical weapons and reduce the ability of OPCW and national intelligence means to detect illegal chemical weapons programs.
  10. Without a categorical prohibition on all uses by the military of chemical weapons, including incapacitants, the CWC’s prohibitions will become increasingly ambiguous as war becomes increasingly redefined as anti-terrorism, humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping. 
  11. Non-consensual alteration of the natural mechanisms of human physiology violates the intrinsic human right to exist in the form given the individual by nature.  Development of agents for this purpose requires the use of medical knowledge to inflict harm, which is a violation of medical ethics.