• Grimmnir@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    4·
    6 days ago

    Weaponized as such, close enough.

    Sealed tins with labels removed left in cupboards or on store shelves in areas Russian troops are moving in to and likely to raid or set up barracks or HQs, however?

  • Bakwerk@feddit.nuEnglish
    2·
    7 days ago

    Better not let Hans Blix anywhere near my fridge then. These little bastards taste best a year or two after expiration date.

    • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
      3·
      7 days ago

      As that’s not a military use, and the deployment mechanism isn’t a tripwire trap, it’s not within the scope of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and not a war crime.

      It might be domestic terrorism, depending upon whether there are plans for anyone to be nearby when it’s opened.

  • tal@lemmy.todayEnglish
    23·
    7 days ago

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamsite

    Adamsite or DM is an organic compound; technically, an arsenical diphenylaminechlorarsine, that can be used as a riot control agent. DM belongs to the group of chemical warfare agents known as vomiting agents or sneeze gases.

    I think that we can probably consider this a vomiting agent, same sort of idea.

    https://www.opcw.org/sites/default/files/documents/CSP/C-14/open-forum/Dangerous-Ambiguities-Regulation-of-Riot-Control-Agents-and-Incapacitants-under-the-Chemical-Weapons-Convention_Rev.1.pdf

    The CWC is comprehensive in the toxic chemicals it regulates.

    • The definition of “toxic chemicals” under Article 2.2 includes chemicals that cause “temporary incapacitation”.
    • Under the Convention, the use of such “toxic chemicals” would be forbidden unless employed for “purposes not prohibited” and as long as the “types and quantities” are consistent with such purposes.
    • Among the “purposes not prohibited” is: “law enforcement including domestic riot control”.

    I don’t think that use of a tripwire trap could reasonably be domestic riot control, so that’s probably in violation of the Chemical Weapons Convention.

    Now, that’s just a treaty, not customary international law, so it doesn’t bind states not party to the treaty.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_Weapons_Convention

    There are 193 states party to the treaty, but “Four UN states are not party: Egypt, Israel, North Korea and South Sudan.” For them, use would be acceptable.

    • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
      1·
      5 days ago

      There are 193 states party to the treaty, but “Four UN states are not party: Egypt, Israel, North Korea and South Sudan.” For them, use would be acceptable.

      Anyone want to take odds on whether Egypt won’t sign just because Israel won’t sign? They’re not exactly a frequent flier on lists of nations who don’t support international law.

    • Successful_Try543@feddit.orgEnglish
      13·
      7 days ago

      Although it’s from biological origin, one won’t infect with surströmming when exposed to its aerosols, but one would suffer from the smell, thus it’s a chemical weapon.