Many contemporary weapons deliver substantial secondary and tertiary damage. For example:
- The long-term ramifications of napalm in Vietnam, on both the soldiers who used it and the environment and people of that country.
What I am curious about is a situation in which these secondary and tertiary ramifications effect some unrelated third party. For instance, maybe some wind blows a bunch of radioactive fallout-dust from country
B which just got bombed over to neutral country
A. Or maybe the napalm dropped on country
B poisons the water which flows into country
A, and which is the only major water supply for that country. Etc.
In a situation like this, would the neutral third party have any standing in international law to state that these secondary or tertiary effects constitute an act of war? Obviously any despot can say "I'm counting this as an act of war" and then wage war, but is there any legal or historical basis to think that international bodies such as the U.N. would generally take the side of the hypothetical country
A in such a scenario?