This is still pretty big, though. I imagine further legislation will be easier if the negotiators can say that legally nobody has any chemical weapons right now.

Of course, I'm sure there's facilities that could start making them in a hurry.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 year ago

Also, the world at least claiming there aren’t any may increase the political costs of their use. Any country that wants to use them will face the backlash or being the “only one” to have them, even if it may not technically be the truth.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago

somewhere by secret services or criminal enterprises.

You say that as if they are two separate things.

[–] sockinacock@lemmy.fmhy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the big players have replaced chemical weapons with something just as horrible but more "smart" like micro-drones with explosive charges and facial recognition.