


This means you would support a ban if it were narrow enough.  Good.


I would hope so.  Let's define a nuclear weapon as an explosive weapon
whose majority of energy comes from fission and/or fusion of atomic
nuclei.  Let's define a biological weapon as live organisms or viruses 
in such state, quantity, and with such a vector that they could cause 
death or serious disease [further defined] to a significant number of
people if released in a city, similarly populated area, resevoir, or
cropland.  


Nerve gas and mustard gas are well defined.  Other poisonous
gasses should be individually banned only if it can be shown that there
is no use not related to weaponry.  Licenses should be available for
research purposes on such chemicals.

I am not a lawyer, but these ideas could certainly be a basis for 
definitions.


Nope.  It is not considered a weapon.


It is not defined as a weapon of mass destruction.  Many things are
banned for other reasons.


