Talk:Chemical Weapons Convention/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cleanup

• Started: 12:07, 11th August 2005 (UTC)
• Completed: 12:53, 11th August 2005 (UTC)

Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 12:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

State party

What's "a state party" suppose to mean? 205.174.22.28 06:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• A state party is a country which has signed and ratified a treaty. I guess someone who is more in tune with public international law should turn that redlink blue. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
  • In this particular case, the term "a state party" is always used as the identity of this country is a secret. Rmhermen 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the clarification, which goes to illustrate why I am not the person best qualified to turn the redlink blue! Physchim62 (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
      • North Korea maybe? The Israeli's would be my second guess. Someone better educated then I would have to find a source for it though, I won't touch an article without one and I wouldn't know where to begin looking for something like this. Either would make some sense. 18 Oct 2006
    • Almost certainly Israel: with 180 signatories, there aren't many other possibilities, although lists of territories which are not parties to international agreements are very difficult to draw up! Physchim62 (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I'd say Israel but since it says the 'state party' also has a production facility I'd have to change my mind. The areas outside the range of missile attacks from Lebenon are too densly populated for that kind of faclilty. As for anyone else there IS a large number of possibilities including South Africa and Ukraine (both with former nuclear programs), any of the former Soviet Republics, or even Taiwan. --mitrebox 23:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This is certainly NOT Israel (nor North Korea) as they never ratified/acceded thus did not declare any. L.tak 18:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear. A state party is thought to be South Korea as the article says. Rmhermen (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Was just reading this page and wondered whether the below was intended or vandalism Iraq, Canada have been appended in front of "As of 2007"

Haven't had time to read the history, so thought I'd add it to the discussion section

"Known Stockpiles (of Chemical Weapons)

Weapons of mass destruction Iraq Canada As of 2007, there were six member countries which had declared stockpiles: United States Russia India Albania Libya[3]"

Stonysleep (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Anti-syrian bias once again.

> Several countries that are not members are suspected of having chemical weapons, especially Syria <

Syria is not suspected, they are a declared chemical power. Damascus clearly said they will not abandon chemical weapons unless the zionist empire disarms its 220-something atomic bomb arsenal and demolishes the Dimona rector. With clearly superior jewish military might on land and in air, only those chemical tipped Scud missiles keep Damascus safe from being overrun by Merkava tanks or being nuked just for pesach fun. It is not like Assad is a new Hitler or whatnot, they are merely defending their national existance against a nuclear adversary, who already curbed a lot of their territory away back in 1967. 82.131.210.162 (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"Syria has not publicly announced doctrines related to the use of chemical weapons; indeed, it has continually denied possessing such weapons."[1] Do you have any sources for these supposed Syrian statement? Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Iraq Status

Department of 州 info on iraq accession to the treaty, please update. http://www.州.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2009/01/113962.htm 75.211.3.137 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1