Chemical Weapons

[Esox]

Any death in war is a terrible way to die. I just don't see how, if we could come up with chemical weapons like I outlined in my original post, (And I'm sure we could, given even moderate research funds) that it would be a worse way to die than getting a bullet through the gut, or having your tank explode and getting doused in flaming gasoline, or having your ship sunk and drowning in the water, or any number of grousome ways that soldiers die in war in the modern age, but don't require the use of WMD.

I agree that there's no humane method for killing. And if there is no humane way, then are all methods equally acceptable? It becomes a question of philosophy, I guess. In All Quiet on the Western Front there is a scene where Kat tells a young soldier he can't use a serrated bayonet because leaders on both sides agreed they were too brutal. I have no idea if this is historically accurate, but the idea is there: Where do we draw the line between acceptable killing methods and unacceptable killing methods? Seems almost a surreal topic to me.

My view on chemical WMDs is that they are far too susceptible to abuse outside of a theater of war.

 

[Elrohir]

I agree that there's no humane method for killing. And if there is no humane way, then are all methods equally acceptable? It becomes a question of philosophy, I guess. In All Quiet on the Western Front there is a scene where Kat tells a young soldier he can't use a serrated bayonet because leaders on both sides agreed they were too brutal. I have no idea if this is historically accurate, but the idea is there: Where do we draw the line between acceptable killing methods and unacceptable killing methods? Seems almost a surreal topic to me.

My view on chemical WMDs is that they are far too susceptible to abuse outside of a theater of war.

That's a good distinction to make. (Acceptable versus unacceptable killing methods.) But doesn't this basically just break down, then, into personal opinions on what is acceptable methods for waging war? That's what I thought originally.

As I see it, war is a brutal affair. Because of this, the only restrictions upon how it should be waged are these:

-Civilians should be harmed as little as possible.
-No needless addition to the amount of pain or death. (IE, using a 1 Megaton nuclear warhead instead of a 10 kiloton nuclear warhead, just because you want to make the enemies country more radiaoctive, for no military benefit; or using a poison gas that is designed to permanently paralyze instead of kill, out of pure sadism.)

Other than that, I don't see why we should restrict war - no matter what we do, it's still going to be an ugly, brutal brawl, so why shouldn't it be as efficient, and quick as possible?

 

[tomsnowman123]

I think they are banned, and should always be baneed as a form of checks and balances. I believe that chemical weapons introduce a very efficient means of killing large populations, and that may quickly be abused. It's like the US government was desinged to be inneficient so that it didn't get to big. If more research was put into chemicl weapons, we would probably have things that are just as scary as nuclear missiles.

 

[Urederra]

I am against because it is a WMD. It kills everything, both soldiers and civilians. Even it is more specific for civilians, since soldier might be equiped with gas masks and survive the attack.

When you use missiles, you can aim military targets as well as civilian targets, that is true, but at least you have some selectivity. Yeah, there are collateral damages and friendly fire casualties, but at least selectivity exists and the aim is military targets. With chemical weapons, selectivity does not exist and the main target is civilian population.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think one big answer is "bang for the buck" is too high with chemical weapons. To raze a few city blocks would require, what?, a hundred shells or so. To kill everyone within a few block with chemical, though, would require a dozen or so. That's deemed to be too risky for anyone to have access to.

 

[nonconformist]

I think one big answer is "bang for the buck" is too high with chemical weapons. To raze a few city blocks would require, what?, a hundred shells or so. To kill everyone within a few block with chemical, though, would require a dozen or so. That's deemed to be too risky for anyone to have access to.

Exactly.

Chemical weapons are just too damn efficient

The objective of war is not to kill the enemy; as some fool once said "tgo make the other bastard die for his", but to wound and maim them.

Quite simply, a wounded soldier is much better than a dead soldier.
A dead soldier stays dead.
He gets his own little grave too, if there's enough of him to go around.

However, blow a guy's leg off, and you gotta have soldiers to apply emergency aid, guard him, medics, have someone drag him back, a field hospital, evac him out, have the resources and economy to look after him, and have him go home, and takre a sledgehammer to morale.

And the effects last sixty or so years, while he gets his pension and bonus and what not from the army. Wounding is the most efficient method warfare has.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well, .... maybe.

I think though, it's a consequence of long-term ramifications and efficiency that prevents people from allowing chemical weapons. And it's a mutual system of 'the moral high ground' and a reasonable line that should be never crossed.

 

[Gelion]

One would expect such reaction from a prole. Why not use them against the bastards? They are less than humans anyway....

[you are walking on dangerous ground... however if you want to continue developing in that direction - do watch the film Starship troopers.... I have a feeling you'd like it]