Nanoweapons = chemical weapons?

from the OK-so-they're-BIG-chemicals dept.
MarkGubrud has pointed out that the 1996 Chemical Weapons Convention includes a strong verification, monitoring, and challenge inspection system (unlike, say, the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention). Given this, I wonder whether it wouldn't be easier to have nanotech weapons classified as a (large) form of chemical weapon, rather than writing a whole new treaty which would then need to be adopted? Mark wrote earlier on nanodot: Compare this with the 1996 Chemical Weapons Convention, with by far the most elaborate and intrusive verification, monitoring, and challenge inspection regime in the history of arms control. There is little reason to believe that, under the CWC, any state party to the treaty can carry out militarily meaningful offensive chemical arms manufacture or stockpiling and escape detection. And most states want to be in the CWC, because those that are not are cut off from the world market in chemical supplies and technology (as well as becoming targets for a US military in search of "rogues").

Leave a comment