Chemical warfare: What's so bad about it?

[Skwim]

The title here isn't meant to draw you into the tent so I can rag on ___fill in subject____, but an honest question. In another thread I brought up the isue, but never got a response. So I'm giving it another shot

In that thread Terrywoodenpic said that chemical warfare was worse than conventional warfare because "it is indiscriminate and uncontrollable after release." I replied:

"Well, bombs are considered part of conventional warfare.

Think the 1945 US fire bombing of Tokyo discriminated between the guilty and the innocent?

​

In the same thread LuisDantas said:

"My gut feeling is that it is mainly a perception thing. Many people think of more conventional weapons as somehow honorable regardless of the grim realities of their abuse."

​

To which I replied.

Got to agree.

The WWII bombing of Dresden Germany

"Between February 13th and February 14th 1945, between 35,000 and 135,000 people were killed by
Allied bombing in Dresden. Historians still argue over the number of deaths."
source

​

I then closed by saying:

"Frankly I see no ethical difference between the 'conventional' methods of warfare and chemical warfare.

​

So, my question here,

Why is chemical warfare more heinous than conventional warfare?
​

 

[Revoltingest]

The fundamental problem (from the USistan perspective) is that countries our Prez wants to invade have them.

 

[Awoon]

The fundamental problem (from the USistan perspective) is that countries our Prez wants to invade have them.

America has chemicals whens the invasion coming?

 

[bobhikes]

As war's go there is no difference, but if they are using it, it can get in the wrong hands and be used by terrorists. That's the same issue we have with nuclear capabilities. We don't want the terrorists to have access to them.

That being said I am against invading.

 

[Sunstone]

Among other things, if terrorists were to set off a few pounds of conventional explosives in a metro area, they might kill tens of people -- or even a few hundred. But if terrorists were to release a few pounds of sarin gas in the same metro area, they could potentially kill several thousand people. Ounce for ounce, chemical weapons have the potential to be far more lethal than conventional explosives.

 

[Revoltingest]

America has chemicals whens the invasion coming?

It's already started.
Ohio gave up without a fight.

 

[Awoon]

It's already started.
Ohio gave up without a fight.

We still gettin some dough for asbestos in our lungs.

 

[Revoltingest]

We still gettin some dough for asbestos in our lungs.

No wonder they call Ohio the "Funtastic State"!

 

[Skwim]

Among other things, if terrorists were to set off a few pounds of conventional explosives in a metro area, they might kill tens of people -- or even a few hundred. But if terrorists were to release a few pounds of sarin gas in the same metro area, they could potentially kill several thousand people.

I agree, gas would probably be a better agent than conventional weapons for a terroist, but I'm talking about warfare. Terrorist acts are generally lone, isolated instances of violence, whereas warfare is violence on a grand unified scale. (My of-the-cuff definitions, but I think they'll do.)

Ounce for ounce, chemical weapons have the potential to be far more lethal than conventional explosives.

Is their weight an important factor in making them worse?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I believe to an extent historically speaking it was because those who used them had less understanding of and control over them; it might be possible for some airborne agents to travel hundreds of kilometers depending on the wind conditions and effect targets nowhere near the intended target (true by such a stage the effects would likely be far diminished due to dilution but it remains true), the tendency of some such agents to leave victims alive but with debilitating impairments or disfigurements, there might also have been concerns over how cheaply such agents might be mass produced leading to fears of a regime implementing some immense ethnic cleansing campaign against foreign nations (which in the end is why foreign nations involved themselves in WWII, lets not kid ourselves - it was because of the Axis' continued aggression not because of their ethnic crimes) but I suppose in the main it was because of the fear factor.

 

[Sunstone]

I agree, gas would probably be a better agent than conventional weapons for a terroist, but I'm talking about warfare. Terrorist acts are generally lone, isolated instances of violence, whereas warfare is violence on a grand unified scale. (My of-the-cuff definitions, but I think they'll do.)

If I recall, Saddam would fly a couple helicopters sprayng sarin gas over a village of Kurds, and wipe out the whole village, down to the last domestic animal. Compare that to the logistics involved in conventional bombing. Or, even worse, compare that to the logistics of positioning and supplying enough cannon to do the same work in as short as time. Then up that to a grand level -- say, attacking a whole army in the field. I don't think it takes rocket science to figure out that chemical weapons are a less costly and more expedient way to kill large numbers of people than conventional weapons.

Is their weight an important factor in making them worse?

I think comparing the potential lethality of an ounce of sarin with an ounce of conventional explosive can give us an idea of how the potential lethality of the two differ on an order of magnitude.

In the OP, you compared chemical weapons to conventional weapons by referencing the destruction of Dresdan and Tokyo. I think a fairer comparison would have been between, say, one city attacked by conventional weapons, and another city of the same size attacked by chemical weapons. There were survivors of both Dresdan and Tokyo. Would there have been as many survivors if chemical weapons had been used instead of explosives and incendiaries? We'll never really know, but I myself doubt there would have been as many survivors, based on what little I know of chemical weapons.

 

[Skwim]

If I recall, Saddam would fly a couple helicopters sprayng sarin gas over a village of Kurds, and wipe out the whole village, down to the last domestic animal. Compare that to the logistics involved in conventional bombing. Or, even worse, compare that to the logistics of positioning and supplying enough cannon to do the same work in as short as time. Then up that to a grand level -- say, attacking a whole army in the field. I don't think it takes rocket science to figure out that chemical weapons are a less costly and more expedient way to kill large numbers of people than conventional weapons.

If I understand you, the problem with gas is that it's a more effective weapon. IOW, war should be kept as difficult as possible to wage. I'm not arguing that this is a bad idea, but do you think this is this essence of banning chemical warfare?

I think comparing the potential lethality of an ounce of sarin with an ounce of conventional explosive can give us an idea of how the potential lethality of the two differ on an order of magnitude.

That it does.

 

[BSM1]

When gas was first used in WWI war had progressed to point where it was passed the "field of honor" stage. War had become a mechanized art form of wholesale slaughter and attrition. I feel that men wanted to feel that they could take back some control of the killing while at the same time re-establishing their own "humanity" identity. So, in my opinion, they banned gas which at the time was the most lethal weapon in the armory. I believe that this ban has lasted simply to allow other men to say that they will destroy each other on the battlefield in a fair and humane manner. This is of course a completely arbitrary move that is easily thwarted. We have seen desperate leaders recently ignoring this ban.

 

[Assad91]

I'm still trying to understand why it is okay for American and Israel to use phosphorus on civilians, but feel they still have some moral superiority

 

[DallasApple]

We have rules of engagement in fighting.Chemical warfare has been deemed "not fighting fair".I look at it kind of like its not "fighting fair" to punch your opponent in the kidneys even though its "fair" to punch them in the head in a boxing match.You cant hit them after the bell rings either etc....ding ding ding!

 

[InformedIgnorance]

So were hollow points once upon a time. Or notching your bayonet.

Niceties extended by certain armies with the hope that such would be returned.

 

[DallasApple]

So were hollow points once upon a time. Or notching your bayonet.

Niceties extended by certain armies with the hope that such would be returned.

We (as nations) have agreed for the most part...rules of engagement.Laws of war so to speak.We should honor those.

It doesn't make any of it "nice" ..but having rules of engagement is the least we can do.Laws within war.If you don't like that then fight dirty .I however agree even within war we should have rules.

 

[DallasApple]

Actually I feel guilty..I'm a boxing fan.One thing I count on though ...if "fighting fair"..

I want worthy opponents...as far as strenght..they both have "similar" in height body weight and close in age..(even though I LOVED when George Foremman won the title back at like what ? 48 ? against a 35 year old???) ...And rules...

Oh gosh I have to watch that fight again..I love George he's a hoot!Wont even sit down in between rounds...He won that fight fair and square!By a TKO

 

[Skwim]

We have rules of engagement in fighting.Chemical warfare has been deemed "not fighting fair".

But why do we still hold to it? If it's still considered "not fighting fair," why? I'm looking for a good rational.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

In contemporary warfare between modern armies (most of whom have anti-chemical kits that can be provided if considered a substantive risk) ? I cannot perceive a valid reason. Indeed it is hard enough to determine an objective reason within the historical context.

What might have more validity as an argument against chemical weapons (not against those agents which are fatal), is if the function of the agent is to maim rather than kill. I think an argument could be made against weaponry designed to result in permanent or long term disability (like anti-personnel mines) as somehow being less acceptable that death (bizarre I know).