Chemical Weapons - What's the big deal anyway?

[MOBIUS]

This thread is inspired by the attack on Imran about his being tasteless for his Chemical Weapons thread...

I don't particularly see what the big deal is about chemical weapons compared to, say, cluster bombs anyway...

So they can kill innocent people in a horrible manner - so do cluster bombs. If one is allowed, why not the other?

The point is that they both kill people indisciminately, but then we are talking about war anyway...

BUT, Chemical Weapons are relatively easy to clear from a battlefield after a war, whereas US clusterbombs are still killing civilians as far afield as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Serbia and Iraq on a weekly basis!

Also what is a 'chemical weapon' anyway? Napalm? Fuel Air Bombs? Aren't they part of the US arsenal?

Personally if Chemical Weapons are banned, I think we should ban cluster bombs as well...

Or we could just unban those Chemical Weapons...?

[Gangerolf]

I guess chemical weapons are considered a big deal only when they are "weapons of mass destruction"

[Gangerolf]

btw, cluster bombs are bad mkay and should be banned, just like anti personell mines (ottawa convention)

[SlowwHand]

Nope. Against the Rules of War.
But hell, everything the Hussein regime does is against the rules.

Don't get me started on how to retaliate.

Ever see Butch Cassidy amd The Sundance Kid ?
Butch (Paul Newman) is challenged to a knife fight for leadership role.
He wants to get the rules set, and his adversary says, "Rules? No rules in a knife fight!", and Butch kicks him square in the nuts.

And there you have it. No rules? That works both ways.

[Berzerker]

Dead is dead. I don't know why chem or bio weapons are to be condemned when a nuke will kill you just the same.

[Zero]

its like two man during middle ages fighting and saying "hey no kicking in the balls".... It was created because somebody didnt want to lose by being kicked in the balls, so he pushed to add this into "honor system".

[Sandman]

Chemical weapons are banned because they were ungentlemanly over eighty years ago. They're 'weapons of mass destruction' now because of scary names and public ignorance.

[Zero]

Eventually Rules of war will be so ridiculous that injuring a personnel on the other side would be considered immoral.... in war!!!! (but by that time Im sure we'll have ummanned vehicles and robots have war for us).

And one day some genius is gonna say "hey I can kill these people! and I can win!"

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
I guess chemical weapons are considered a big deal only when they are "weapons of mass destruction"

But they don't actually 'destroy' anything - buildings are left standing, many leave their victims looking as though they're just sleeping or unconscious...

Cluster bombs OTOH, destroy buildings and turn people into a broken bloody smear of gore. They also destroy a countries economy for decades by making whole regions too dangerous to farm or develop and draining their hard currency into paying for mineclearing these areas...

I think at the very least, the US should send in minesweeping teams to pick up their sh*t after the conflict is over!

The point about anti personnel mines is a salient one - because in many terrains that is precisely what unexploded cluster bomblets become. If the one is banned, then why not the other???

[monkspider]

I think things such as MOABs and daisy cutters should be banned as illegal weapons of mass destruction. But anyway, America isn't really a country known for observing rules.

[Japher]

I think it is a good rule mainly because:

Chemical Weapons are relatively easy to clear from a battlefield after a war

Is not always true. Nor is the fact that they kill ppl, most of the time they torture ppl before they kill them... Rahter "inhumane". Yet, all is fair in love, war, and the love of war.

[Zylka]

They were rather banned because of assured ease on the overall humanity, expense and speed of war for either of opposing sides. Having a constant chemical soup wafting about your troops and citizens is an *extreme* blanket element that no side feels comfortable they can gain an advantage with (while both using it), so a mutual cancellation of such an element to make it less psychologically horrific and speed the overall campaign of war up was seen fit. Of course gas masks are now readily available, but chemicals outside linger a constant horrific psychological threat and expense to the effort.

Now when one side can see use of these weapons knowing the others can't respond the same, the advantage is tempting.

[MOBIUS]

Oops, I may not have made myself clear in the first post and have edited it.

I wouldn't blame Saddam for one second if he used them - assuming he has any left...

Is not always true. Nor is the fact that they kill ppl, most of the time they torture ppl before they kill them...

Halabja (sp?) is perfectly habitable now, in the sense that the chemical effects are gone AND the town was left standing afterwards...

And having a wicked piece of scorching shrapnel sticking out of your stomach while you struggle to keep your innards in as you slowly bleed to death is not 'torture'...

[SlowwHand]

For sure. Destroying buildings is much the worse.

[realpolitic]

Chemical weapons were banned because of their special menace...they kill people so cheaply, they threaten arms dealers' profits.