[Closed] why is one form of maiming and killing

Well that narrows it down.

tis but a scratch

Because one is more fun?

why are chemical weapons something to be horrified over, but bombs seem to be fine?

Why is meat murder ?

in general terms, I think probably it's felt to be one more hoop to go through to accuse someone of deliberately bombing civilians - as the weapon is "legitimate" in some circumstances it's easy to say "oh, we thought the opposition was there; not civilians - silly us"
Chemical weapons aren't allowed at all, so "we meant to gas the opposition" isn't a defence

Because [i]we [/i]use bombs on a regular basis, therefore it's a more friendly form of killing.

I'm sure I don't have an answer for this that doesn't include lots of ums and er...s.

But in an attempt to offer something to ponder over: Bombs could be considered instantaneous, many/most people killed by a bomb will be dead within a second or so.

But those that are killed by chemical weapons will take much longer to die, which is arguably worse.

Yes, we should only condone nice murder.

I don't know what I'm talking about, but would a chemical weapon not have more long-term effects? Lingering on in the atmosphere, tainting the ground, getting into the ecosystem perhaps? Propagated to other unintended areas by the wind?

I think that it's because chemical weapons can be cheaply made and easily deployed so virtually any tinpot regime could make and use them , also the way they kill people could be said to be pretty horrific and drawn out even for those who die fastest whereas being bombed can be instantaneous if you are lucky . It's like nuclear weapons , they can kill millions in one fell swoop but they aren't banned because only very rich and technically advanced countries can afford to have them and are able to deliver them accurately and reliably . The countries that have them are also able to dictate , rightly or wrongly , that nobody else can be trusted to have them

Why is meat murder ?

Tasty, tasty murder...

Bombs tend to reasonably isolated especially modern ones, chemical attacks cover huge areas with many fatalities, some long painful deaths, many life changing injuries and effect more civilians. Both are not fine however.

why are chemical weapons something to be horrified over, but bombs seem to be fine?

I'm saddened by both, but can see why, when conducting warfare, bombs are preferred to chemical weapons. As others have said, long term effects on the environment, speed of death and lingering side effects are probably the main reasons for why they are seen as worse.

Spreading em all over the place with high explosives is fine because that's what we do...

Cougar - Moderator
I don't know what I'm talking about,

Chemical weapons, like land mines and cluster bombs, are less discriminatory and therefore more likely to involve civilians.

shermer75 - Member
therefore more likely to involve civilians.

We'll maybe not completely stay out of it! 😆

Thing is, is the concept of a surgical strike not completely and utterly debunked? Not to mention that bombs, in all forms, from air to surface, mortars, IEDs etc, seem to cause an awful lot of civilian deaths. They don't appear to be very discriminate.

Surely it's the targeting that's the important bit there? Once the target has been selected, I don't really see much of a difference. The ecological idea seems fair enough, but a weak differentiation in the grand scheme. (particular when you consider depeleted uranium and the likes, and you've also white phosphorous that causes a horrible death to conter the other point.)

It seems weird to try and apply rules and convention to a situation where, by definition, all other forms of diplomatic discourse have failed but it seems that this has always been the way.

I guess deep down there is a shared understanding between both sides that 'we don't want them do that particularly nasty thing to us so maybe if we both agree not to do it then maybe it won't happen. Hopefully!!' However, unfortunately and with great sadness, it looks like it doesn't always work.

piemonster - Member

Because we use bombs on a regular basis, therefore it's a more friendly form of killing.

That's a bit simple tbh- we used to use chemical weapons regularly, then we helped get them banned. The difference between conventional and chemical can't be "we use conventional therefore it's alright", because the only reason we don't use chemical is that we chose not to.

Someone mentioned that chemical weapons are cheap to make, I would imagine that would be more of a concern to the arms industry than the manner of death.

Because we don't sell them to Saudi Arabia and make billions so they are obviously really bad.

Same reason fags are ok but cannabis isnt. and Alcohol is ok but cocaine isnt and its ok to harm people with cars but not axes.

So its ok to kill kids in the Yemen with bombs bought from us but an atrocity to kill kids in Syria because we didnt make any money from it.

What about grey areas like depleted uranium munitions... rumour has it that along with nuclear weapons programs, that a large part of why we're tied into nuclear power, despite the horrors of 3 mile island, Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Also, if chemical weapons are so bad, why does [s]our[/s] Her Majesty's government have a history of supplying them to questionable regimes and aiding their production... Saddam being a prime example.

Then when civilians flee the chemicals, and British, French, American and Russian bombs the Germans are vilified by some on this very forum for giving them refuge, and Brits in general don't want them because they're "terrorists". Flee in terror and you are automatically a terrorist.

And just who started all this? That's right, Blair and his Christian mate Bush.

wilburt

Same reason fags are ok but cannabis isnt. and Alcohol is ok but cocaine isnt and its ok to harm people with cars but not axes.

So its ok to kill kids in the Yemen with bombs bought from us but an atrocity to kill kids in Syria because we didnt make any money from it.

I see your glibness there but obviously, that's the reason [b][i]we are told[/i][/b] in the most sensationalist way one thing is bad. It's not the reason it is bad. The news media last night, along with the PM's comments doesn't make Saudi Arabia blowing up schools and hospitals alright, but there was a strange absence of that type of coverage, and there has been long term.

Maybe I missed it the broadcasts where Yemeni children were lying dying in the streets, and the condemnation from Theresa May or that guy who was there before her but I doubt it.

As others have said, I think chemical weapons are worse because they are more indiscriminate, less focused and capable of killing and maiming far more people over a bigger area than conventional explosives with the exception of nukes.

Silly me, Depleted Uranium isn't a grey area, it's perfectly legal and acceptable...

[url= https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/depleted-uranium-du-munitions ]
An explanation of why the Ministry of Defence (MOD) believe the use of depleted uranium (DU) munitions is lawful, why they reject claims that the use of DU munitions presents severe health and environmental risks and why we oppose calls to ban these munitions. [/url]

I'll spare you images of the birth defects caused by depleted uranium...

why are chemical weapons something to be horrified over, but bombs seem to be fine?

also because bombs can be used to destroy hardware and infrastructure with human casualties seen as regrettable collateral damage rather than the target?

...because just about every nation on Earth (with only one or two exceptions like NK) has signed a treaty banning their use.

Even before this was signed the European public were so shocked by what the heard/saw from the trenches of WW1 that it became political suicide to talk about using them. This did not prevent governments anticipating their future use in the run up to WW2 however - and issuing protection/preventative measures to their citizens.

In pure military terms chemical weapons are ineffective against protected targets, at best they force your opponent to don bulky uncomfortable clothing & respirators. Trained soldiers will be fully protected in less than 10 seconds if they are already in an environment where it is anticipated such weapons could be used.

So in short, they are horrendous, ineffective against enemy combatants and above all else are against the rules so not cricket!

Hope that helps.

Didn't we/US use them in Fallujah?

Didn't we/US use them in Fallujah?

No, just cluster and phosphorus bombs. The US is good that way.........

Thing is, is the concept of a surgical strike not completely and utterly debunked? Not to mention that bombs, in all forms, from air to surface, mortars, IEDs etc, seem to cause an awful lot of civilian deaths. They don't appear to be very discriminate.

Not really, generally civilian-combatant ratios have gone down.

If Iraq had been fought with dumb munitions, much of Iraq would have looked like Grozny during the Chechen war. Or Stalingrad.

Anyway, it's great to see the Guardian getting in such a moral twist and regret over their anti-interventionist stance after this - after they slammed Hitchens.

Surely it's the targeting that's the important bit there? Once the target has been selected, I don't really see much of a difference. The ecological idea seems fair enough, but a weak differentiation in the grand scheme. (particular when you consider depeleted uranium and the likes, and you've also white phosphorous that causes a horrible death to conter the other point.)

Along with the other points made, bombs don't tend to kill first responders either.

I'll spare you images of the birth defects caused by depleted uranium...

Last time I checked, the evidence for DU causing birth defects really wasn't that great.

Iraqs mostly a case of multiple low doses of various industrial pollutants, possibly because of all the dirty crap they had to use during the sanctions.

...because just about every nation on Earth (with only one or two exceptions like NK) has signed a treaty banning their use.

Syria hasn't signed (Info Europe 1)

If Iraq had been fought with dumb munitions, much of Iraq would have looked like Grozny during the Chechen war. Or Stalingrad.

Footage of Syria and Iraq in Iraq looks a lot like those towns to me, not forgetting most of the buildings are concrete and much more resistant than brick, stone and wooden structures. The older villages made of mud brick are as flat as Stalingrad.

If I recall correctly some people were appalled by the injuries and long slow deaths arising from conventional munitions in WWI (not to mention the devastation) and thought that chemical weapons would be a more humane alternative, just like putting people to sleep, as if they'd all gone to the vets......

Mostly because though explosive munitions CAN be misused they can also be used against military targets and can be made to explode in a certain radius.

Chemical weapons on the other hand are pretty much ineffective against any modern military (though I guess you could argue we could create nastier and nastier ones but the point is to avoid a race) and can't be delivered to a set area due to wind etc. and are really only effective against civilians.

In the case of terrorist attacks any idiot can poison a whole cities water supply...

In the case of terrorist attacks any idiot can poison a whole cities water supply...

A lot harder to do than you might think fortunately. Probably why it hasn't been done AFAIK. I'm not about to start quoting confidential reports but your water supplier has considered this.

I seem to remember that, back in the cold war, somebody in NATO was trying to develop a lazer that could be used to permanently blind tank crews. (back in the days when they looked through periscopes. I suppose its all TV screen nowadays)

There was a huge fuss in the press as this was seen as far too barbaric. Presumably it was thought far more humane just to blow them up.

Chemical weapons are worse because they allow the press to publish pictures of dead children. How many times did you hear, "it looks like they are asleep - but they are DEAD!!" in the news in past 48 hours?

Pictures of children blown limb from limb won't make the editorial cut, and a mother stricken with grief outside the rubble of a bombed out building is one that we are desensitised to.

There will be fuss, politicians will get their soundbites out, and then everyone can go back to 'tut, tut, such a shame'

Less profit for BAE innit?

Same reason fags are ok but cannabis isnt. and Alcohol is ok but cocaine isnt and its ok to harm people with cars but not axes.

So its ok to kill kids in the Yemen with bombs bought from us but an atrocity to kill kids in Syria because we didnt make any money from it.

Then when civilians flee the chemicals, and British, French, American and Russian bombs the Germans are vilified by some on this very forum for giving them refuge, and Brits in general don't want them because they're "terrorists". Flee in terror and you are automatically a terrorist.

And just who started all this? That's right, Blair and his Christian mate Bush.

absolutely spot on with the current situation but a lot of this goes even further back to the meddling antics of Henry Kissinger

neither is better than the other TBH...but then it doesnt take a genius to work that one out unless you're a trigger happy despot dictator in charge of some tinpot/proxy/western bully regime
one causes a more painful and lingering death for the world to see and its not just in Syria that this has happened...the Israeli's have used white phosphorus shells on the Palestinians, Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, the Americans have i'm pretty sure used depleted uranium...and lets not forget their use of napalm (while it may not be a chemical weapon the visual impact is similar to all other chemical warfare attacks) in Vietnam

its plausible to say that while a chemical strike may hit its intended target the spread of the chemical is designed to cause more damage/death/suffering to a wider area...but this is no better than missile strikes that miss their intended targets and instead hit homes/heavily populated residential areas, schools and hospitals...of which there have been many instances of in recent years

There is of course the potential for bombs to primarily disrupt infrastructure and remove your enemy's ability to fight/prepare to fight, whereas chemical weapons can only kill people.

I'm not sure there's a massive difference in practice. But theoretically I think it applies.

I think it's more relevant to ask why I (or for that matter a freedom fighter/terrorist depending on your viewpoint) am not allowed to use violence for my personal reasons, but a "nation" is.

Whilst any form of munitions is considered deadly, the main differentiation is there long lasting ability to remain volatile/ harmful.

Normally it's described that a bullet or bomb to simplify things once fired/dropped has reached it's intended target that it is one time deal (clearly not the case with old munitions still being discovered)

But with Nuclear, Chemical and Biological agents and land mines, the reason they are banned is that they can still be harmful for decades after the event or longer.

Clearly thought the boundaries are very grey, when you talk about depleted uranium shells, which are used to combat armour plating on tanks, APCs and the like, the uranium shell hits the outside of the vehicle and literally "squirts" the uranium into the vehicle, not a nice place to be, their use is often placed as one of the reasons for Gulf War Syndrome

In 'fair' and 'traditional' warfare 'Conventional' munitions can/should primarily be used to knock our strategic Military targets (runways/ammo stores/supply lines/etc) and legitimate military targets.
The war in Syria is totally different, as it is effectively Guerrilla warfare - street-to-street fighting in built up areas.
It is impossible to knock out a legitimate military target without collateral damage when it is parked in a school yard/hospital car park etc.
Civilians will end up getting killed, either as collateral damage or due to being used as human shields.

Chemical weapons do not harm strategic targets (runways/ammo stores) they only kill people.

The situation is Syria has descended into utter chaos - the Assad regime can act with total impunity as Russia/China will back them whatever, and are now even making up comical lies to try and defend Assad.
The principle opposition (ISIS) are not bound by any conventions and use horror tactics to scare people into doing what they want.

I think the use of Chemical weapons this week just shows that Assad can do what he likes, as any efforts to try and stop him are basically an attack on Russia.

The images of dead kids lying in the street won't change anything all the time Putin/Xi are backing the regime - trouble is it will be difficult from Putin to climb down from this position without massive loss of face.

https://www.icrc.org/en/document/weapons

To echo free agents very well put point, a recent video released by the Iraqi are force clearly show IS fighter manoeuvring through the streets with women and children in tow as shields. That place has gone to hell in a hand basket and will continue to deteriorate further. Dying through conventional munitions is bad enough, but chemical weapons, those poor people. 🙁

its plausible to say that while a chemical strike may hit its intended target the spread of the chemical is designed to cause more damage/death/suffering to a wider area...but this is no better than missile strikes that miss their intended targets and instead hit homes/heavily populated residential areas, schools and hospitals...of which there have been many instances of in recent years

This is bollocks, at least one system makes an attempt to discern between targets.

As I said earlier, Iraq didn't look like Grozny during the American occupation. Baghdad, never once, looked this bad - Grozny looked like every other example of apocalyptic levels of destruction the Russians get involved with - Stalingrad, Aleppo etc.

[img] [/img]

There was a reason for that, the Americans didn't need to use katyusha barrages, barrel bombs and chemical weapons to dislodge entrenched targets. There's been a move to even smaller munitions since as well, eg Brimstone.

the Israeli's have used white phosphorus shells on the Palestinians, Saddam used chemical weapons on the Kurds, the Americans have i'm pretty sure used depleted uranium...and lets not forget their use of napalm (while it may not be a chemical weapon the visual impact is similar to all other chemical warfare attacks) in Vietnam

The yanks did use a proper chemical weapon in Vietnam, Agent Orange - a herbicide which due to improper manufacturing (I think) - caused huge amounts of birth defects. I'm surprised you didn't use that as an example instead of Napalm - anyway, have you seen the Americans using napalm recently?

DU seems to have had a lot more research done into it's long term health effects - since I last read up on it in 2008. Perhaps a munition to be banned for all occasions but Russian tanks charging into Europe? Another thing with DU, is that it's an easy target to blame - I remember getting in contact with a researcher from Liverpool back in 08 who had a professional interest in the topic. Iraq, especially Southern Iraq around Basrah, has been contaminated with so much shit it makes China look positively clean. Leaking ship wrecks, industrial chemicals, old fertilisers, mustard gas, dioxins....

And just who started all this? That's right, Blair and his Christian mate Bush.

Really feel the need to correct this as well, 100,000 dead kurds before the Gulf war, 100,000 dead during the 1991 uprisings, likely a million dead during the Iran-Iraq war, the latter wasn't far off racking up as many casualties as the Vietnam war.

Yeah, Bush and Blair made thing so much worse...it was a bastion of civility before.

Although if you go further back, the British empire - somewhere and at some point in time, can probably be blamed.

kinda wish i didn't give the war fantasist a platform! 😆