Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not suggesting that chemical weapons are OK by any means, NOT AT ALL. But after 100,000 Syrians including many civilians and children are dead by use of "conventional weapons" - why is the international community now outraged that reportedly 1300 Syrians have been exposed to chemical weapons?
Had the Assad regime refrained from using chemical weapons and killed another 1300 Syrian civilians with guns, bombs and other conventional weapons - would that be acceptable? Or another 100,000 using conventional weapons. Conventional weapons easily kill large numbers of people these days too, so it can't be the scale of deaths. What?
Killing with poison has always been considered the lowest form of murder and medieval law had extra-grim punishments for poisoners - and that's saying something, medieval law not being into the soft touch as it is.
The idea behind the (much later) Laws of War has been that one can wage effective warfare without causing unnecessary suffering. Poisoned weapons were formally outlawed in the Hague Convention (1899) and everybody has been busy thinking up chemical weapons ever since, of course.
But as it happens, in conventional war (as in, we want to take objective X on Day D) chemical weapons are just not very useful. They are surprisingly finicky about weather conditions, they take a relatively high level of sophistication to use effectively, and the spots where you've used them will become contaminated for your own troops for days, at least - possibly months. It takes a sh.tload of training and gear for your own soldiers to move through areas where chemical munitions have been used. This, much more than humanitarian concerns, kept chemical weapons from being used in WWII and (mostly) afterwards. Sure, they were attempted in WWI, but they didn't work very well.
On the other hand, if you're fighting the type of war where you want to eradicate your opponent and aren't going to bother with prisoners - if you're in the "sow the ground with salt" mindset - well, then a packed, besieged town where you can wait for conditions to be perfect is a logical target.
Your answers are off target. Chemical weapons drift with the wind. You can drop a chemical weapon on a military target, but the wind can carry it to effect a nearby civilian village. The chemical weapons are also horrible. They've generally divided as blister and nerve agents. Blister agents doesn't sound bad until you realize that it causes people to drown in their own fluids. Nerve agents are like pesticides you use on roaches or wasp. It attacks the central nervous system. Even if they survive, they're damaged for life.
I am not suggesting that chemical weapons are OK by any means, NOT AT ALL. But after 100,000 Syrians including many civilians and children are dead by use of "conventional weapons" - why is the international community now outraged that reportedly 1300 Syrians have been exposed to chemical weapons?
Had the Assad regime refrained from using chemical weapons and killed another 1300 Syrian civilians with guns, bombs and other conventional weapons - would that be acceptable? Or another 100,000 using conventional weapons. Conventional weapons easily kill large numbers of people these days too, so it can't be the scale of deaths. What?
Because it's important for Obama to draw a line in the sand that he can retreat from.
Your answers are off target. Chemical weapons drift with the wind. You can drop a chemical weapon on a military target, but the wind can carry it to effect a nearby civilian village. The chemical weapons are also horrible. They've generally divided as blister and nerve agents. Blister agents doesn't sound bad until you realize that it causes people to drown in their own fluids. Nerve agents are like pesticides you use on roaches or wasp. It attacks the central nervous system. Even if they survive, they're damaged for life.
There are many ways to kill. Germ warfare, chemical , nuclear and we have the power to destroy all of mankind.
It will get worse.. one can poison the water, the air the food . It is a sick world and getting progressively sicker as years go by...
Man has the capability to destroy everything here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
