This is a special post for quick takes by TsviBT. Only they can create top-level comments. Comments here also appear on the Quick Takes page and All Posts page.
For the banning of these weapons, how much does effectiveness weigh against moral concerns? If usefulness weighs a lot, then these examples won't generalize to TAI.
Unless there are very clear, convincing evidence that TAI isn't controllable with current paradigm, then it will still be perceived as a highly useful tech. (Even if such evidence exists, IMO there's high possibility that they'll just cope harder.)
Biochemical weapons: These are only useful against civilians and pre-modern armies. Modern armies can easily afford equipments to protect against these.
(I saw this article mentioned somewhere in another LW post. When I see TsviBT's shortform I immediately recalled this article, so I wrote this post.)
Space nukes and LEO missiles: In space there's no cover, they're easily detectible. Without air, dodging maneuver cost significant dv. This means overall less survivability than ground / sea based nukes.
Deploying missiles in LEO also requires a more complicated trajectory than traditional ground / sea based missiles, which cost more dv. If they need to stay in space for a long time, then reliability and maintainence also becomes a serious problem.