It is somewhat interesting.
Reading through this thread and realizing how many folks on here read only one side of any story.
That said:
WMD treaties are there to provide a structure for getting around to removing the real nasties from the 'war' equation. And don't get me wrong here, the folks that go out and organize those are doing so mostly from good intentions. The issue is that if one reads through the WMD treaties and the articles of war relevant to these things the signatories and non signatories for some of them make for exceptionally ironic news articles at times. (The US, China, and Israel come to mind as having ironic media, at least on several fronts the Russians of late have been brutally forthright)
The really really interesting question here is why is war always meant to be fought by soldiers on the battlefield, in the air or on the waves. Why do governments pay corporations ridiculous amounts of money for the hardware to equip those soldiers. Why has there been an active war *somewhere* on the planet for the last 70 plus years?
(playing quietly in the background, Edwin Starr track)
(why yes, I DO think that if countries end up going to war we should have the leaders that make that decision battle to the death in unarmed, naked, mineral oil coated hand to hand combat)