In response to the last question, "whether or not using biological or chemical weapons is any more immoral or considered a war crime, then using conventional weapons or nuclear bombs during WW2," I thought I would immediately have the correct and unequivocal answer, however, the more I thought about it the more I questioned the use of weapons and war altogether.  I have always been a pacifist and against violence in all forms.  I am a vegetarian, I never hit my kids, and I have never been in a fight in my life.  However, there is no denying that the world, especially America, is a very violent place.  Regardless of one's personal stance on violence and civil disobedience, such views will never be equally respected and left alone.  The fact is that some people will always want to take advantage of other people and will not hesitate to use violence to further their needs.  Therefore, I do support the military and understand its role and appreciate its effectiveness.  Despite this, abuses of power and wielding of massively destructive weaponry have devastated populations around the world for centuries.  It is hard to justify the use of massive firebombing, nukes, and chemical defoilage in the act of war, while condemning the use of other types of chemical and biological weapons.  The author brought up a good point of biological weapons going back as far as opposing armies catapulting diseased bodies over the walls of castle sieges.  The use of biological and chemical weapons have been used for a long time and on all side of conflict.  The point is, if the idea of war and weapons is to kill as many people as quickly as possible, then what is the difference between one kink of weapon and another.  So, to answer the question, I still don't know.  What I do know is that I oppose war and violence but realize it is a part of human nature and we must be able to defend ourselves and other innocent people.