Why do Chemical weapons matter?

Originally posted by tetra50
reply to post by James1982

 

I addressed that point, in fact, when I spoke about the nuclear arms race being explained at the time as a deterrence, I think.

However, I still disagree with you. Because we will still strike, whether it's all out collateral damage or not. We've proven this, time and time again. Or we'll backdoor fund the terrorists, and go in with surgical strikes, and make it look like we were considering your points, when we really weren't. We'll do it either way, is the point. The other way is just sneakier. Is that better, really? Or just more convoluted and producing of even more corruption and lies?

I'd rather "surgical strikes," in definitive territory of such as weapons storage and armament, etc. But even this, is no longer trustworthy, really. Cause we'll just SAY that's what it was, and who knows the difference, really. And meanwhile, we'll see some stuff on MSM about women and children being killed in a strike the US said was on a weapons storage facility, etc.....

You know, there's no way to cut this to make it better, really, than any other option, because so much of it is fueled by info most of us no longer trust, regardless, in whatever country, coming from whichever side.

But I guarantee you this, if you had a choice between living in a surgical, conventional strike zone, and chemical weapons deployment or nuclear fallout, I guarantee I know what you would personallly choose, for you and your loved ones. And that really, is what your question addressed. Bringing it home, and what you would wish to live or die through, what your best chances would be.....

You discuss this, if I were in the Middle East, as a "spoiled American," who really has never had to consider such things, other than Pearl Harbor. You know this is why so many hate us, don't you?
Tetra50

It seems "they" hate us because we can't mind our own business, destroy their countries and murder their civilians, and then we claim a moral high ground.

I don't think me saying that we should butt out and leave everyone be except in cases of extreme danger would be cause for anyone in the middle east to hate me, but if they do, not much I can do about it.

And I agree that I'd rather live in a surgical strike zone as opposed to a chemical wasteland. But then again if I die as collateral damage during a surgical strike, I don't matter. My death means nothing because that strike was so surgical, yo! But if I die of chemical weapons, then I'm world famous and my death is far more important than the fools getting killed by bullets and bombs.

Killing with conventional weapons is expensive and bloody, time consuming and resource draining. Lets face it some would like the easy way, less bloody and certainly less expensive. This would only encourage its use more and more as the world goes crazy. Just gas, pick up the bodies no mess, no destroyed cities. War and death made easy will only encourage more.

reply to post by minkmouse

You bring up a good point, but its not technically a problem because the drones in combat are under the direct operation of a controller who is morally and legally responsible for the activity of that craft. Besides the controller, there may be spotters on the ground helping to direct the drones targeting.

reply to post by James1982

Let me explain this another way...
No matter what rules are set for driving there will always be automobile deaths that occur, right?
So does that mean that we shouldn't try and prevent as many of those deaths as possible by setting responsible speed limits, and other motor vehicle operational rules?

See where this is going?

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by James1982

 

Collateral damage on the civilian population is an unfortunate and sometimes unavoidable side effect of war. The rules were put in place to limit that as much as possible. By limiting weapons to ones that have to be directly targeted, or attended and controlled by their operator, they attempt to limit their use to only other combatants.

Just to further prove my point...
This is also why its considered against the rules of conflict to kill non-combatant soldiers as well. Examples of non-combatant soldiers being: medics, war correspondents, and Chaplains. As long as none of those personnel pick up a weapon, under various rules of conflict, they are not to be killed or fired upon.

edit on 9/4/2013 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)

I do fully understand the difference between weapons which can be targeted, and those that can't like chemical weapons, your point is well taken. I didn't want you to think I was ignoring your point or being purposefully stubborn.

But even guns, artillery, and guided bombs aren't perfect. Once you squeeze off a round, it doesn't matter who the intended target is. If you are in a crowded area full of civs shooting an the enemy, you are going to hit innocents. The issue is warfare taking place in civilian areas in the first place. It doesn't matter whether you use guns, bombs, or chemical weapons, if there is a battle in an area heavy with civies they are going to die.

Basically my point is that these rules of war make war easier to perpetrate and accept. That is not a good thing, and I guess it just comes down to a difference of opinion, and I can and do respect yours on the matter.

There was a time, not that long ago, where firearms were considered to be a breach of "the rules" it was seen as a horrific and unfair advantage.

Once we got over that, then we thought it was only acceptable to march in straight lines and shoot at each other while the rulers watched with glee while drinking tea at the top of a hill. The idea of actually hiding and specifically targeting individuals was seen as horrible and uncivilized.

These rules of what's acceptable in warfare are constantly changing and are based on the needs and wants of those making the rules. Of course anything that gives your enemy an advantage needs to be demonized.

And who has the right to make these rules on what's acceptable? If you willfully enter into an agreement to not use such weapons, then you are breaking an agreement and that's a different story. Syria never signed or agreed to the chemical weapons ban, why do we feel we have a right to make rules on how they conduct war within their own borders?

Originally posted by James1982

Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by tetra50

 

Technically there should be no distinction as horrific as it may seem. Oddly enough I think it comes down to leveling the playing field in war because I see no difference of a bus full of children being blown up with some IED versus nerve gas. Even more horrible to say that when you do use a gas you keep the infrastructure in tact...we use depleted uranium that has a far longer and slow killing effect from our warthogs so it does bring up an interesting and certainly legitimate question...

War is war and you simply just can't pretty it up...the outcome will always be death but one may be quicker than the other..and more cost effective..

Guess we could compare it to someone on death row...hanging or lethal injection...most people would say lethal injection because it seems like a more humane way to die but when you get down to it they both suck...

edit on 4-9-2013 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)

Thank you for bringing up the DU.

Just another example of the disconnect we are expected to believe in. Shelling a country with DU is ok and nobody bats an eye. Even though there are known factual issues, they are glossed over.

The US, and other "no chem" countries use weapons and commit acts just as bad as Sarin gas attacks.

When you say war is war you are right, but that's not what "they" want you to think. They want you think war means watching someone else die from bullet wounds on TV, or having a family member overseas. That's not war. If the American people truly were exposed to what war is they would stop their lust for it.

There is not much of a difference between DU and lead as far as toxicity. They react different when they hit targets but contrary to what some say they do not emit poisonous doses of radiation. There are soldiers here in the US who have DU shrapnel in them and have been monitored for any adverse effects and so far nothing those studies can be found online easily. I would link but I am not used to I pads.

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by James1982

 

Let me explain this another way...
No matter what rules are set for driving there will always be automobile deaths that occur, right?
So does that mean that we shouldn't try and prevent as many of those deaths as possible by setting responsible speed limits, and other motor vehicle operational rules?

See where this is going?

I do, but warfare is not driving.

Driving is an activity that has no intended result of death or destruction. Keeping it safe for those involved makes perfect sense.

Warfare is all about death and destruction, so making it "safe" makes no sense to me.

Originally posted by James1982
The basis of the world's involvement in Syria is the use of chemical weapons.They use the excuse that Chemical weapons are so horrific that anyone using them should immediately be taken out.

Why? Why are chemical weapons some sort of "red line" (not to use buzzwords or anything) Because they are awful? Newsflash, war is awful. Killing is awful. Thrusting pieces of hot metal through people's bodies at supersonic speeds is awful. Blowing people apart into bloody chunks is awful.

It's ALL terrible, why do chemical weapons get such a special role? Why is saddam bad for gassing people, why is the use of chemical weapons in syria so bad?

Because chemical weapons are indiscriminate. It is impossible to respect the distinction between combatant and noncombatant when using chemical weapons, especially among a civilian populace.

If something is so serious that you need to resort to violence and killing, you are already at that red line. Millions of Africans getting hacked apart by machettes seems far more heinous than chemical attacks.

Maybe, maybe not. But machetes are very precise weapons, and chemical weapons are indiscriminate.

This idea doesn't seem to be talked about much, which surprises me. A death is a death, if I kill one guy by shooting him in the head, another guy by chemical weapons, another guy by blowing hip apart, and another guy by hacking him apart with a large knife, what does it matter? I've done something terrible either way.

It matters because you targeted the guys you shot and hacked, so you were capable of distinguishing between combatant and noncombatant (even if you did not). This kind of discrimination is impossible with poison gas. You just released it and it killed a bunch of people who are immune to attack.

It seems so incredibly arrogant to place a higher worth on some people's lives compared to others. John smith doesn't matter, because he died via being shot to death, burned to death, hacked to death, etc. But bob bobstien DOES matter, because he died from chemical weapons. It shocks me to think that some people actually hold the idea that killing people has levels of acceptability depending on the method used.

The method matters very much, because the method determines whether or not you can respect the distinction between combatant and noncombatant. Small arms fire is discriminating. You have to aim. Even aerial bombardment is considered discriminating, provided certain areas are off limits and the military value of the target is sufficient to justify the collateral damage. Indiscriminately killing civilians is not. This is a fundamental and well-established precept of humanitarian law. There are various conventions on this, but the best overview is probably found in the ICRC's overview of customary international humanitarian law.

Your ideas on how war ought to be conducted are, fortunately, rejected by all civilized peoples. War is fought so nations can have peace and prosper. Most wars are fought with the understanding that the end state will be peace between the belligerents. Even if you reject all moral and ethical arguments for the protection of noncombatants, you must admit that peace is easier to maintain with a relatively intact, self-supporting civilian populace. If wars were fought your way, there would never be any peace. It would be just one long, continuous, worldwide humanitarian disaster. You seem to think that outcome is so horrible no one would ever contemplate going to war. Maybe, in a perfectly rational world of perfectly balanced states, that would be true. But we don't live in that world. Your theory is not applicable to the world we live in, so few people will really take it seriously.