"US prepares to use toxic gases in Iraq"

[MichaeltheGreat]

Unless Saddam's "human shields" are hanging out down in command bunkers (highly doubtful), that's not the case. General application of these as area effect weapons (a la human shields) is not mentioned.

Demerzel - I agree it's hypocritical, but then so are lots of things about this war, more than I can count without a world class threadjack.

UR - I'm aware of that, and it's one of the unfortunate aspects of the current convention. On the flip side, this may all be psychological warfare (a lot of disinformation made the press before Gulf War I, like reliability stories about the M-1 Abrams in the desert, and the deployment of Marine amphibious forces), intended to convince the Iraqi commanders that they're not safe in those bunker complexes.

[Sava]

I guess Bush is gonna try and pull a "Putin".

someone should gas Bush...

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Unless Saddam's "human shields" are hanging out down in command bunkers (highly doubtful), that's not the case. General application of these as area effect weapons (a la human shields) is not mentioned.

Demerzel - I agree it's hypocritical, but then so are lots of things about this war, more than I can count without a world class threadjack.

UR - I'm aware of that, and it's one of the unfortunate aspects of the current convention. On the flip side, this may all be psychological warfare (a lot of disinformation made the press before Gulf War I, like reliability stories about the M-1 Abrams in the desert, and the deployment of Marine amphibious forces), intended to convince the Iraqi commanders that they're not safe in those bunker complexes.

From the story:

"The Defence Secretary attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in international treaties on using the weapons in warfare. He specified that they could be used "where there are enemy troops in a cave [and] you know there are women and children in there with them". General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of using them against human shields."

[MichaeltheGreat]

There aren't many caves in Iraq, and Saddam's prior use of human shields have been around large area targets, so it sounds to me more like these guys are fishing for palatable explanations.

The "golly gee" statements by Myers and Rumsfeld are a little different from the reference to:

"Senior US defence sources predict these could be used in Iraq by elite special forces units to take out command and control bunkers deep underground."

Myers and Rumsfeld were trying to sell the idea in front of the House Armed Services Committee, which is rather different from defining operational policies on their use.

[gunkulator]

Police use gas all the time to break up riots with a nary a peep from concerned individuals. In the end, gas saves lives. Period.

I see this feigned outrage as yet another excuse to paint the US as the evil bully in this matter. If the bullets do start flying, the most humane thing that can happen is a swift end to the conflict with the smallest loss of life possible. If gas is a means to that end, I say we use it.

[Ned]

So, MTG, is the alternative to seal the bunker and let everyone die?

Are secretaries in bunkers soldiers?

[MichaeltheGreat]

I've pointed out that the alternatives are all higher lethality. And one would presume that military command centers have military secretaries and clerks - ours do. And female secretaries can handle pistols just fine, thank you, so in the bunker environment, they're a threat.

I'm in favor of using this stuff, because I'd much rather take this type of bunker intact and gain the intel that could be gained that way, rather than inflicting and incurring casualties, and one way or another destroying or giving the enemy time to destroy intel.

However, and it's a fairly big however, there is an element of hypocrisy both in deploying these agents, and in signing a convention banning their use when we have no intention of not using them if tactically advantageous.

[Demerzel]

Originally posted by gunkulator
Police use gas all the time to break up riots with a nary a peep from concerned individuals. In the end, gas saves lives. Period.

I see this feigned outrage as yet another excuse to paint the US as the evil bully in this matter. If the bullets do start flying, the most humane thing that can happen is a swift end to the conflict with the smallest loss of life possible. If gas is a means to that end, I say we use it.

Did you not read the article? The kind of gas they may be using is similiar to the one they use in the moscow siege. It killed a very large percentage of those they were trying to save.

So a gas which kills 9% of the targets is humane? This isn't an attempt "to paint the US a bully" its a thread about the hypocrisy of using chemical weapons ( or their precursors ) on an enemy who you are fighting because they are evil as they have chemical weapons...

[Az]

MtG: is this stuff really "chemical weapons"? ala VX?

[gunkulator]

The kind of gas they may be using is similiar to the one they use in the moscow siege.

Are you equating a military operation with a hostage situation?

So a gas which kills 9% of the targets is humane?

Compared with napalm or conventional weaponry that achieves close to 100% mortality - yes. War by it's nature is not humane at all. If you read my post, I am not arguing for or against war, I am simply pointing out that if war does come, a swift end with the fewest casualities is the closest we can come to being humane.

its a thread about the hypocrisy of using chemical weapons ( or their precursors ) on an enemy who you are fighting because they are evil as they have chemical weapons...

So in order to avoid offending your sense of irony and hypocrisy, you would advocate more death and destruction? Non sequitor.

[Jaakko]

Originally posted by Azazel
MtG: is this stuff really "chemical weapons"? ala VX?

I ain't MtG, but here:

http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

Like I said, this is a stupid move politically for the Bush admin.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Demerzel


Did you not read the article? The kind of gas they may be using is similiar to the one they use in the moscow siege. It killed a very large percentage of those they were trying to save.

So a gas which kills 9% of the targets is humane? This isn't an attempt "to paint the US a bully" its a thread about the hypocrisy of using chemical weapons ( or their precursors ) on an enemy who you are fighting because they are evil as they have chemical weapons...

D, The problem with the article and your point is that America will be using these "weapons" to SAVE LIVES. This is a MAJOR difference with what Saddam is using his chemical weapons for.

[Demerzel]

That is true Ned but it's a damn fine line to walk and is open to interpretation from the user. Saddam could claim he is using chemical weapons to save Iraqi lives. Obviously in this case it'd be a blatant falsehood as we know better.

To the really neutral however, i.e. an alien from Mars, would they be able to distinguish the difference?

I just want to see as little life lost as possible in any war but it ruins our moral high ground if we use "illegal"* weapons that the enemy might use.

*illegal from terms of Chemical Weapons Convention.

[chequita guevara]

Pepper spray kills asthmatics and other people who get too much of it.

[Sandman]

Firstly, with regard to chemical weapons, deploying them effectively is the difficult part. Every cent the US invests in inventing new ways to use 'non-lethal' gases will also make 'lethal' gases much easier to use.

Secondly, 'deadly' agents like mustard gas and sarin are far from 100% lethal, in fact they're probably little better than the assorted gases the US wishes to use.

I actually don't have a serious problem with gas being used as a weapon, but I do have a problem with it being used to manufacture a flimsy casus belli.