In your hypothetical, the primary purpose of the device is to be used as a a weapon. In my cases, they're neither weapons (although they may have weapons applications, which are not covered under the treaty per se) nor defenses of any kind in their primary uses.
True, a cloak is not itself a weapon - yet the treaty still bans it. Weaponization is not the key factor; capability is.
Your lawyer in my hypothetical would argue that the flashlight gun is primarily a flashlight, at least until it is used primarily as a gun. So if secondary/primary purpose is the test, how do you determine which is which?
We don't disagree on this part--weaponization not being the key factor. However, we DO disagree on mere capability being the key factor, if that capability is just a side effect (I'm not even looking at intent). I pointed to weaponization because, in your scenario, the gun is bannable because it is a weapon. My lawyer can argue the specious idea that it's a flashlight first and a gun second, but his argument would remain specious. To a sensible majority of people,
it's a weapon first.
I meant phasing is not primarily a weapon at first consideration, nor would Warp 10+ speed or better ship-building materials be weapons.
Of course the treaty bans actual cloaks for the Feds--but not, as I argue, tech that merely has a cloaking effect as a secondary result. I simply do not see the Federation entering into a treaty that gives the Romulans a de facto veto over the development of technology that might have cloaking as a side effect.
Dr. Genius invents Warp 10+ drive and the Feds ditch it because, somehow, as a side effect the ship using it is invisible to Romulan sensors? Not only would they not, they should
not, not unless there is some specific codicil in the treaty covering secondary effects.