The Wonk was “kind enough”:http://lewis.armscontrolwonk.com/archive/4383/libyas-scud-b-force to cite “a piece”:http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1549 I wrote way back when regarding Libya’s Scud-B missiles, so I was inspired to blog this small item.
As you likely know, Libya has destroyed its CW munitions, but not all of its agent. Yet there are still OPCW reports and “documents”:http://www.opcw.org/news/article/opcw-expresses-concerns-over-chemical-weapons-stockpiles-in-libya/ which refer to Libya’s “chemical weapons.”
My understanding is that the OPCW uses the terms “chemical “weapons” and “chemical agents” interchangeably. That makes sense, given the definitions in “Article II”:http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/article-ii-definitions-and-criteria/ of the CWC:
bq.. 1. “Chemical Weapons” means the following, together or separately:
a. Toxic chemicals and their precursors, except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention, as long as the types and quantities are consistent with such purposes;
b. Munitions and devices, specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of those toxic chemicals specified in subparagraph (a), which would be released as a result of the employment of such munitions and devices;
c. Any equipment specifically designed for use directly in connection with the employment of munitions and devices specified in subparagraph (b).
p. Stay dry.