Posted on 03/15/2006 9:47:25 AM PST by S0122017
Are all bio and chemical agents lethal?
No.
It says it's an empty container, then there's speculation that all sorts of stuff could be used - pepper spray, smoke, crowd control agents, biological agents, chemical agents, obscurants, marking agents, dyes and inks, chaffs and flakes.
It's a catch-all statement - that's how patents are written.
Making a chemical warfare boogeyman out of this will be as successful as the attempt about 9 months ago by the European press to say the US's use of White Phosphorus projectiles and grenades amounted to chemical warfare.
Unless they plan to spread the common cold virus, yes.
Besides, they coined the terms 'bioagents' in the war against terror, as something very lethal that terrorists use. Not to mention that the concept of any weapon based on live biological organisms is outlawed by conventions.
Good to see we're getting some sort of "bang for the buck" out of our
government.
They hardly do anything else well.
Regardless, it is incredibly stupid to use those terms.
You might as well patent an explosive and state that it can be use for terrorism!
That's what I thought.
So you are assuming this rifle has no other application than in war, right?
I really don't understand the big deal here.
From your keyboard to DU's talking points...
Gunpowder is a made through a process chemical too. Gunpowder burns fast, Willy Pete's burn slower and longer.
A burning substance like gunpowder, napalm, WP is considered conventional weaponry. They're not nerve agents, blistering agents, or choking agents.
Burn, bludgeon and pierce to death - ok
Chemically choke, blister, or shut down the nervous system to cause death - not ok
Of course warfare and rules have a very tenuous relationship.
The problem? You don't see it?
No matter how you define bioagents, the official definition is that of a weapon. No weapon designer or researcher in their right mind would include it as 'potential use'. It would immediately classify the weapon as being part of outlawed weaponry.
And it doesn't matter what it will be used for in the end, what matters is that someone expected it to be used for war, and possibly for dispersal of outlawed agents.
How can the US army confront terror countries because of their bio and chemical weapons, if they are cosnidering their own?
Since we have such a tough time proscecuting Terrorists and Dictators for their actual deeds, this way we can get them for patent infringement.
Mace is a chemical agent
Pepper Spray is a biological agent
They need to be covered by the patent. The definition does not infere the use of chemical warfare as banned by the Hague, Geneva Convention, or other international law. This is just simply a legal definition of a product.
That's the title. You posted it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.