Chemical warfare: What's so bad about it?

[Kilgore Trout]

It stems from the ridiculous notion that there are acceptable ways to kill people and unacceptable ways to kill people. After all, if we want to legitimize the act of ending thousands of peoples' lives, we need to ensure that we do it under a system which gives us the illusion that it can still be done in a civil manner.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It stems from the ridiculous notion that there are acceptable ways to kill people and unacceptable ways to kill people. After all, if we want to legitimize the act of ending thousands of peoples' lives, we need to ensure that we do it under a system which gives us the illusion that it can still be done in a civil manner.

I thought it was cause death from chemical weapons looks a lot more painful for the person than other ways.

 

[Slapstick]

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?
​

Depends on how it is being used and what it is being used for.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I think that biological and chemical weapons (not so much nuclear actually) are still problematic in modern times due to the difficulties their use poses in terms of ensuring a very tightly scoped target. Particularly when you consider that most of the state actors that might be inclined towards using them these days are those that are perhaps we might say, less technologically developed and that therefore their resort to the use of chemical weapons will probably take the form of rather unsophisticated mechanisms whereby control of the dispersal is more subject to underlying conditions of the field (and probably also less inclined towards exercing moderation in terms of careful application and robust controls instead favoring more extensive use). Of course biological weapons have this same problem but some then also have the capacity for transmission.

Modern nuclear weapons on the other hand seem to have had significantly more development than they once did (treaties non-withstanding) and are perhaps far less problematic than they once were, the same is more difficult to suggest of chemical and biological weapons particularly when utilized by developing nations, not because their use is any more moral, but rather because the scope of the effects of use are more likely to be contained.

 

[Skwim]

Depends on how it is being used and what it is being used for.

So what what are the defining circumstances that make its use acceptable and unacceptable? And, what manners of usage are acceptable and unacceptable? I take it that these would be no less deleterious than carpet or fire bombing using conventional weapons.

I think that biological and chemical weapons (not so much nuclear actually) are still problematic in modern times due to the difficulties their use poses in terms of ensuring a very tightly scoped target. Particularly when you consider that most of the state actors that might be inclined towards using them these days are those that are perhaps we might say, less technologically developed and that therefore their resort to the use of chemical weapons will probably take the form of rather unsophisticated mechanisms whereby control of the dispersal is more subject to underlying conditions of the field (and probably also less inclined towards exercing moderation in terms of careful application and robust controls instead favoring more extensive use). Of course biological weapons have this same problem but some then also have the capacity for transmission.

I believe biological weapons are another issue, and for the very reason you give; uncontrollable spread.

 

[Revoltingest]

So what what are the defining circumstances that make its use acceptable and unacceptable? And, what manners of usage are acceptable and unacceptable? I take it that these would be no less deleterious than carpet or fire bombing using conventional weapons.

Acceptability depends upon who you ask. When the US supplied chem & bio weapons to Iraq to use against Iran, it was acceptable (to the US, but not to Iranians). But when Syria uses them (& raises Israeli fears), then it becomes wrong (to the US & Israel, but not to the Syrians wielding them. Inconsistent, eh?

 

[Sir Doom]

Here is a funny parallel (funny-weird not funny-haha).

Shooting someone in a war is okay, but gassing them is inhumane.

Gassing someone as a punishment for murder is okay, but shooting them is inhumane.

lolwut?

 

[Skwim]

Here is a funny parallel (funny-weird not funny-haha).

Shooting someone in a war is okay, but gassing them is inhumane.

Gassing someone as a punishment for murder is okay, but shooting them is inhumane.

lolwut?

Nice observation.

 

[Bismillah]

Encourage you to read about the physiological response to such chemical agents as nerve gas and then have the gall to ask "what's so bad about it". What a terrible rhetorical question, have some shame.

 

[Willamena]

So, my question here,

Why is chemical warfare more heinous than conventional warfare?
​

You are right, it's not.

 

[dust1n]

Gas kills rather indiscriminately?

 

[Aquitaine]

Encourage you to read about the physiological response to such chemical agents as nerve gas and then have the gall to ask "what's so bad about it". What a terrible rhetorical question, have some shame.

It's not that we're saying "what's so bad about it" as in it's an acceptable thing to use, but rather why is it seen as incomprehensibly worse than all the other "approved" methods of killing large numbers of people.

 

[Skwim]

Encourage you to read about the physiological response to such chemical agents as nerve gas and then have the gall to ask "what's so bad about it". What a terrible rhetorical question,

Actually it's not. In fact, it's not even a plain ol' every-day rhetorical question.

FYI,

Rhetorical Question
Definition: A question asked merely for effect with no answer expected.
​

have some shame.

You are kidding, aren't you? Please say "Yes."

 

[idav]

Chemical warfare tends to have long term effects that stick to you and your DNA. I'd rather get shot then my DNA tampered with.

 

[Bismillah]

It's not that we're saying "what's so bad about it" as in it's an acceptable thing to use, but rather why is it seen as incomprehensibly worse than all the other "approved" methods of killing large numbers of people.

Chemical warfare has been categorically banned by the majority of nation states since the conclusion of World War I as a particularly reprehensible means of conducting warfare.

A couple reasons for this. As some have so blithely commented dead is dead and the end result is the same. The difference lies in the abject pain and suffering that results from chemical weapons. A short description on the mechanism and effects of Sarin which was used in the Syrian urban center of Ghouta

Nerve gases like Sarin poison the acetylcholinesterase enzyme that's found throughout our nervous systems. Enzymes are proteins that break down substances in the body. Typically this enzyme serves as an "off switch" for a neurotransmitter called acetylcholine, a chemical messenger that sends signals to nerves that control muscle movements, breathing and other bodily functions. Neurotransmitters are released from one nerve to the next in a continuous signaling system, and the enzyme typically turns this cycle off, which allows the acetylcholine to get recycled and reused later in the body.

"What the Sarin gas does, is it basically renders the enzyme ineffectual," said Spaeth. That causes acetylcholine to build up and keep jumping from one nerve to the next in a constant, unending signal. Depending on which nerves were affected and how much gas exposure there was, devastating symptoms may quickly follow.

For someone inhaling the gas, nausea, diarrhea, vomiting, seizures, muscle spasms, excessive secretions (like mucus production) and breathing problems can occur within minutes.

"You're talking about many different organ systems being affected, not just one," he said.

In the event of an attack, the gas can also absorb through the skin or eyes and remain on clothing, the latter posing a risk to emergency responders rushing to treat the wounded.

Chemical nerve agents: A "very toxic and horrible way to die" - CBS News

Chemical weapons are indiscriminate, shifting with the prevailing winds and sinking into bomb shelters and basements where innocents take refuge. They have little practicality winning conventional battles. What they are very very good at is killing a large number of clustered people indiscriminately. Or in other words they excel at targeting urban centers. That is their inherent purpose and threat in the modern world.

And given this threat there has been a precious precedent established since the Geneva Protocol, that nation states do not use these weapons in their conflicts. There have been numerous bloody wars between merciless governments and militant group and aside from a couple of notable exceptions they have all abided by these norms. When Bashar Al Assad uses these weapons without any serious response from the international community it erodes this precedent. It encourages or resolves totalitarian regimes that there is no significant threat from using such large scale weapons of mass destruction. Progress comes one step at a time and only an oblivious fool would be the one to to go back on this global precedent of condemning the use of these weapons.

That's why it is important to create a global condemnation of these weapons, to monitor their stockpiles and use, and to take definitive action in the event of their use.

You are kidding, aren't you? Please say "Yes."

I only speak to let you know I find these types of theatrics you are pulling disgusting. It is my firm belief that it takes a man who is offensive to the core to create a spectacle of the suffering you are talking about. It takes a degree of obliviousness and lack of empathy to slap on a "what's so bad about it". Have some shame.

 

[averageJOE]

I've been trying to think of what to say in this thread since it went up. Still not sure actually. So I'll just ask a question: Since war is a very real part of life and is something that isn't going away, do you feel chemical warfare is fair game? That we should be free to use chemical weapons in modern wars? Being that some people feel that death is death.

Hopefully this isn't a strawman and missed something here.

 

[Skwim]

I only speak to let you know I find these types of theatrics you are pulling disgusting. It is my firm belief that it takes a man who is offensive to the core to create a spectacle of the suffering you are talking about. It takes a degree of obliviousness and lack of empathy to slap on a "what's so bad about it". Have some shame.

Your hyperbole *sigh* is duly noted. And as for imputing your sense of shame on others---in particular, me---save it. I don't know you near well enough to care about your emotional proclivities.

 

[Aquitaine]

Chemical warfare has been categorically banned by the majority of nation states since the conclusion of World War I as a particularly reprehensible means of conducting warfare.

A couple reasons for this. As some have so blithely commented dead is dead and the end result is the same. The difference lies in the abject pain and suffering that results from chemical weapons. A short description on the mechanism and effects of Sarin which was used in the Syrian urban center of Ghouta Chemical nerve agents: A "very toxic and horrible way to die" - CBS News

Chemical weapons are indiscriminate, shifting with the prevailing winds and sinking into bomb shelters and basements where innocents take refuge. They have little practicality winning conventional battles. What they are very very good at is killing a large number of clustered people indiscriminately. Or in other words they excel at targeting urban centers. That is their inherent purpose and threat in the modern world.

And given this threat there has been a precious precedent established since the Geneva Protocol, that nation states do not use these weapons in their conflicts. There have been numerous bloody wars between merciless governments and militant group and aside from a couple of notable exceptions they have all abided by these norms. When Bashar Al Assad uses these weapons without any serious response from the international community it erodes this precedent. It encourages or resolves totalitarian regimes that there is no significant threat from using such large scale weapons of mass destruction. Progress comes one step at a time and only an oblivious fool would be the one to to go back on this global precedent of condemning the use of these weapons.

That's why it is important to create a global condemnation of these weapons, to monitor their stockpiles and use, and to take definitive action in the event of their use.

I only speak to let you know I find these types of theatrics you are pulling disgusting. It is my firm belief that it takes a man who is offensive to the core to create a spectacle of the suffering you are talking about. It takes a degree of obliviousness and lack of empathy to slap on a "what's so bad about it". Have some shame.

Meh, it's war. Bullets, bombs, carpet-bombs, napalm, "Rainbow Herbicides", Depleted Uranium ammunition, White Phosphorus, Flame-throwers etc.

People are murdering each other, more often than not for unjust reasons. I often feel trying to "regulate" something such as War to be rather pointless. Sooner or later, when feces impacts with the rotary fan, people aren't going to play by the rules - the instinct of self-preservation at all costs will inevitably kick-in.

Why don't we instead try to find peaceful and lasting solutions before resorting to War, rather than trying to "police" War itself?

 

[Bismillah]

I often feel trying to "regulate" something such as War to be rather pointless. Sooner or later, when feces impacts with the rotary fan, people aren't going to play by the rules - the instinct of self-preservation at all costs will inevitably kick-in.

How many conflicts have there been since the singing of the Geneva Protocol in the early 20th century? How many of those have used chemical weapons? Very very few exceptions, the signatories of the treaty have abided by the terms. Reality conflicts with your narrative.

Why don't we instead try to find peaceful and lasting solutions before resorting to War, rather than trying to "police" War itself?

There's no reason both can't happen.

Trying to conflate conventional weapons, their affects, and usage with those of chemical weapons is disingenuous.

 

[Aquitaine]

How many conflicts have there been since the singing of the Geneva Protocol in the early 20th century? How many of those have used chemical weapons? Very very few exceptions, the signatories of the treaty have abided by the terms. Reality conflicts with your narrative.There's no reason both can't happen.

Trying to conflate conventional weapons, their affects, and usage with those of chemical weapons is disingenuous.

Try "banning" conventional weapons and see how far that gets you.

When directly threatened in a serious manner, we will break our own rules and use whatever necessary to win, including chemical weapons. Hell we would probably use nukes if that's what it takes to win a war..... oh wait, we already have.

Signing a piece of paper - when push comes to shove - won't really change much.