Chemical Weapons Convention ( Cwc )

Poison Gas/Chemical Warfare usage, while not harming physical structures preventing the collateral damage of homes and buildings, causes a high casualty rate in all living things. It is indescriminate and robs life equally be they related or not to a target of military or strategic importance. Gas usage has been widely considered uncivilized, but the French resorted to its usage in August, 1914 during the first World War in an attempt to rout the Germans. Unfortunately, the Germans were the first to give gas warfare serious development and it became used extensively before the war was over. On the battlefield it prooved effective in eliminating hostile threats in an inhumane way, but this does not make it morally acceptable. In more recent times ISIS has been reported to using Poison Gas in Syria against both military and civilians in an indescriminate manner. This sort of attack ignores international laws as well as inhumanely cause widespread harm. In this day and age, this sort of attack is unnecessary and is why it was outlawed in the first place even back during the first World War.

The first World War has been reported to be one of the most brutal wars in the history of time for many reasons. One of those reasons was strategic usage of chemical warfare. Chemical gas was used on both sides of the line, which turned out to be fatal for many. World War I was mostly fought in the trenches, where soldiers lived in deep, v-shaped holes or underground bunkers. Both sides would occupy these trenches in order to escape from the constant stream of bullets. These battles often ended in a standoff, or tie, which helped the introduction of a different, brand new style of fighting that included the use of chemicals. These chemicals had a range of

Frist of all, in the Second Battle of Ypres, the Germans introduced the first use of poisonous gas. When poison gas first introduced it was a popular weapon choice and would be the weapon to change the outcome of the war. The Germans surprisingly attack the Allies, where the used lethal chloride gas against them. The gas was deadly and killed over one thousand soldiers. (1) It also allowed a significant advanced for the Germans in the war. The gas usage continued to grow throughout the war. In the end, many Allied countries started chemical weapons research. Gas warfare became common but effective actions were used to protect the troops. After World War 1, poison was use for a while but in today’s war it is no longer allowed. Instead of poisonous gas, chemical warfare is used. Chemical weapons come in a variety of forms and are used for several different techniques.

In 2003, President George Walker Bush and his administration sent the United States military to war in Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s ruler and dictator, who murdered over 600,000 innocent people, and “...used chemical weapons to remove Kurds from their villages in northern Iraq…” (Rosenberg 2). According to the Department of Defense’s website, the war removed Saddam Hussein from power, ending an era when “Iraqis had fewer rights than when its representatives signed the Human Rights Declaration in 1948” (1). American blood, money, and honor was spent in what was allegedly a personal war and perhaps a fight to gain oil and natural resources, but only history may reveal the truth. Although the Iraq War removed tyrant Saddam Hussein from power, the failures of the war dwarf the successes.

Military fatalities were minimized as the war dragged on due to counter-measures (gas masks) and better tactics to mitigate the effects of chemical weapons. After WWI, popular opinion pushed most countries to sign the Geneva Protocol which banned the use of chemical weapons. Use of chemical weapons since WW I has been minimal, but periodically it has been used during such conflicts as the Iran-Iraq War and the current Syrian Civil War.

In 1925 Geneva Protocool became huge becuase those in the part war wanted to avoided such a deadly war again. 38 Countires signed this agreemnet “that prohibited the use of ‘asphyxiating, poisonous or or other gas’ in warfare” (“Chemical Warfare: Does the use of Chemical Weapons warrant immediate US intervention?” 2). People belive that with out this being set in place that World War 2 wouldve been much more deadly then it already was. This shows the effect of signing the Geneva Protocool and the world leaders had learned from the bad and moved forward from then on out so they became “reluctant to use chemical weapons during World War II than they did during World War I” (“Chemical Warfare: Does the use of Chemical Weapons warrant immediate US intervention?” 3). Despite the effort of the Geneva Protocool it wore off “During the Vietnam War, the US military sprayed herbicide and other chemicals, including agent orange, over the Vietname countryside” (“Chemical Warfare: Does the use of Chemical Weapons warrant immediate US intervention?” 3). Overtime the protocool wore out but it did have some great effects and helped for a few years after it was

The Geneva conventions are a group of treaties on treatment on the public, (POWs) prisoners of war and soldiers who are differently concluded hors de combat, or incapable of fighting. The leading convention was admitted by the International committee for relief to the Wounded (that became the International committee for the Red Crescent and Red Cross). This convention made a treaty which was designed to protect sick and wounded soldiers during wartime. The Swiss government agreed to hold the conventions in Geneva, and couple of years later, an alike agreement to protect shipwrecked soldiers was produced. In 1949, subsequent to World War 2, 2 new conventions were added on from the original 2, and all four of them were confirmed by a lot of countries.

The first World war chemical weapons were used then outlawed for combat. “Unlike when the U.S. was the only nuclear power and first used the technology against Japan without fear of reciprocation” ( The Ch.1 The Dangers). As a country we didn’t know the effects of a bomb on a living city, but now we know the consequences. Now what

The fact that we cannot use chemical weapons is a very bad thing. We could have used these weapons in the Vietnam War. With all the tall grass and dense forests, our soldiers were not prepared for the close up combat. If we had used the chemical agents in that forest, we could have eliminated hidden enemy forces and we would have saved many American soldiers’ lives.

According to Dr. Ahmed AlJalbi whom was interviewed by Wood, Saddam destroyed universities, schools, and private enterprises, in addition to the Shi’a authority by abusing it. He caused distrust and oppression within the Iraqi society. Moreover, after Operation Desert Storm, human rights violations under Saddam’s regime took place. He drained the wetlands of Southern Iraq to punish the Marsh Arabs for their uprising.

War, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is “A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state” (citation). War truly does bring out the worst of in the people involved, because in war the objective is to kill or capture enough of the opposing sides’ soldiers to show that your side is superior. Both sides will take any measures necessary to win, a few examples of this being Mustard gas, Ricin, Agent Orange, and Sarin . When guns and other weapons will not cut it, that’s when in the mind of the governments that chemical warfare became necessary . Since these four chemicals and many more have been used throughout history, the Chemical Warfare Convention banned all forms of chemical weapons, due to the lasting effects of the chemicals on both nations and individuals of those nations. The way the CWC defines a chemical weapon is a toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action.

Is the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons in war ethical? Is there an appropriate time to use them? A dilemma will later be presented for consideration. Different ethical theories can either support or oppose the use of CBW depending on the circumstances. However, chemical, biological and nuclear agents are dangerous, uncontrollable and undifferentiating weapons of mass destructions. Actions must be taken to see that there are no future instances of use during war. However, before one discusses the legal and ethical issues involved with CBW, one must understand what chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are and how they function.

Chemical weapons are toxic gases, which use in the wars such as World War 1. Chemical weapons used in First World War and they killed a lot of people even children. In addition, chemical weapons are unless color, so people can’t see them. Also, most of people who died through the First World War were civilians. Therefore, who were responsible about them? In addition, people who survived had dangerous and permanent diseases such as cancer, asthma … etc. Even people’s genes effected by these toxic gases and they cause a lot of genetic problems that appeared in a second generation. Even soldiers who were pushed to this war. Then, they died or effected who were responsible about their families. In addition chemical weapons burned a lot of trees and they changed plant characteristics. Also, these gases can react with others to change air and weather characteristics. Therefore, chemical weapons effect on our

Since the Geneva Protocol only banned use of these weapons, and the weapons were so strong, several countries developed these lethal chemical weapons and stored them in surplus. But soon, laws came into place to stop that also. The Biological Weapons Convention was developed by the British and was functionable in March of 75. This was during the cold war era in fear of the lethal weapons regaining popularity.The BWC prohibited manufacturing and storing the weapons. There was also the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) which forced the destruction of currently stored chemical weapons.

Are Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD’s) able to be used ethically in time of war without consequences? A question with many different answers from all over the world, from children, adults, and elders alike. Today, we will review quite a few things about WMD’s, such as what uniquely defines the ability of WMD’s from that of the average weapons. We will also view who created them, and why they created them in the first place. Furthermore, we will look into what was stated earlier: Are WMD’s able to be used ethically in time of war without consequence? We’ll answer this and more, with the paragraphs ahead.