To be super technical it says "does not possess chemical AND biological weapons anywhere"

Which legally and logically is much different than "does not possess chemical OR biological weapons anywhere."

Basically what they stated by saying AND is that nowhere do they possess biological or chemical weapons at the same time, together. That statement would be technically true if they did have bio weapons at one place and chemical at another but not both at the same time.

I found it very odd they stated it that way.

Most people would say or, but they said and.

Any pede with a 101 logic/philosophy/programming class under there belt will understand that AND and OR are very different things and the language matters a lot when it comes to law.

To be super technical it says "does not possess chemical AND biological weapons anywhere"

Which legally and logically is much different than "does not possess chemical OR biological weapons anywhere."

Basically what they stated by saying AND is that nowhere do they possess biological or chemical weapons at the same time, together. That statement would be technically true if they did have bio weapons at one place and chemical at another but not both at the same time.

I found it very odd they stated it that way.

Most people would say or, the said and.

Any pede with a 101 logic/philosophy/programming class under there belt will understand that AND and OR are very different things and the language matters a lot when it comes to law.