Whats the problem with chemical weapons ?

Almaviva

Why are world politians getting worked up about chemical weapons being used in Syria ?

A hundred thousand dead and many thousands more injured so far in the conflict there and they do little or nothing - people die from chemical weapons and now they get stroppy about how people are being killed.

Whats the message "stick to the bullets and bombs guys please - we're OK if you just kill and maim people that way" ?

lkionm

The result is chemical burn.

P_1

There's a massive taboo attached to them from their use in the Great War. Similar to nuclear weapons the general attitude is that (in purely military terms) killing in retail (bullets, bayonet charges, artillery etc) is acceptable, killing in wholesale (gas, nukes, plagues) is not.

bleg

Almaviva wrote: »

Why are world politians getting worked up about chemical weapons being used in Syria ?

A hundred thousand dead and many thousands more injured so far in the conflict there and they do little or nothing - people die from chemical weapons and now they get stroppy about how people are being killed.

Whats the message "stick to the bullets and bombs guys please - we're OK if you just kill and maim people that way" ?

They've probably been elevated to a level of "Weapon of Mass Destruction" that they don't deserve.

3DataModem

bleg wrote: »

They've probably been elevated to a level of "Weapon of Mass Destruction" that they don't deserve.

Cannot be targeted effectively, is the issue.

Doom

You choose to point a gun at a solider and kill him(who chooses to pick up a gun too)and shoot, chemical weapons kill everyone, kids, babies etc (who do not choose to pick up a gun)
IMO everything bar a gun is a weapon of mass destruction.
Chemical weapons are particularly vile as the deaths are usually very painful.

Nailz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwuhous0NBU

Mr. CooL ICE

lkionm wrote: »

The result is chemical burn.

Boards banned him, so he went to Syria? Strange guy

Almaviva

Doom wrote: »

You choose to point a gun at a solider and kill him(who chooses to pick up a gun too)and shoot, chemical weapons kill everyone, kids, babies etc (who do not choose to pick up a gun)
IMO everything bar a gun is a weapon of mass destruction.
Chemical weapons are particularly vile as the deaths are usually very painful.

How wide or uncontrolled is their range ? Presumably the soldier doesnt have kids around him in a battle.

Up to this in the conflict, have civilians, children etc been pretty safe ?

tomatosauce34

They are quite effective.

bumper234

Almaviva wrote: »

How wide or uncontrolled is their range ? Presumably the soldier doesnt have kids around him in a battle.

Up to this in the conflict, have civilians, children etc been pretty safe ?

No. Civilians have not been "safe" per se as both sides have been pretty indiscriminate in both shootings and bombings. The thing with chemical weapons is they are uncontrollable. The missile they use is not that accurate and could go off target by as much as a mile.

The chemicals do not discriminate and will kill men,women and children in an horrific and painful way. Finally depending on the weather the chemical fall out could be anything from a couple of blocks resulting in hundreds of deaths to a couple of square miles resulting in thousands of deaths.

The One Who Knocks

lkionm wrote: »

The result is chemical burn.

I'm just waiting for Chemical Burn or Chemical Burn New Account to come back from the dead and say "Did someone say Chemical Burn?"

He was a good troll,

RIP Chemical Burn

Victor

Indiscriminate - they kill or injure everyone within range (typically from 10s to 100s of metres, depending on type and concentration), regardless of whether they are combatants or not.

Nasty - it's not a nice way to die and those that are injured tend to find it difficult to recover. They are very difficult to treat as the injuries are internal.

Persistent - depending on type, they can go on killing and injuring beyond the initial attack.

lkionm

LordChessington wrote: »

Boards banned him, so he went to Syria? Strange guy

This is all boards fault. If only they left him off creating weird threads in his own little forum this probably could have been avoided.
All that energy he spent using up megabytes had to go somewhere I suppose

lkionm

Jamez735 wrote: »

I'm just waiting for Chemical Burn or Chemical Burn New Account to come back from the dead and say "Did someone say Chemical Burn?"

He was a good troll,

RIP Chemical Burn

He was a harmless lad. AH has been missing a certain something since he left.

I think we should have a no trolls allowed rule so we are allowed have one troll

Owen_S

You rarely hear anything in the news about children being born deformed in Iraq due to weapons used by the 'world police', really shows the extent of the propaganda spouted by mainstream news outlets.
http://rt.com/news/iraq-depleted-uranium-health-394/

mikom

Almaviva wrote: »

Whats the message "stick to the bullets and bombs guys please - we're OK if you just kill and maim people that way" ?

Stick to the bullets, bombs, and drone strikes on wedding parties.

bumper234

Owen_S wrote: »

You rarely hear anything in the news about children being born deformed in Iraq due to weapons used by the 'world police', really shows the extent of the propaganda spouted by mainstream news outlets.
http://rt.com/news/iraq-depleted-uranium-health-394/

^^^ this

Depleted Uranium rods will be a huge problem in Iraq for thousands of years to come.

Sunnyisland

Owen_S wrote: »

You rarely hear anything in the news about children being born deformed in Iraq due to weapons used by the 'world police', really shows the extent of the propaganda spouted by mainstream news outlets.
http://rt.com/news/iraq-depleted-uranium-health-394/

And you got that story from Russia Today, well known for its impartial opinions and straight news :rolleyes::rolleyes:

bumper234

mikom wrote: »

Stick to the bullets, bombs, and drone strikes on wedding parties.

And funerals......don't forget the funerals.

Stereomaniac

Attack the funerals and don't give them a funeral afterwards, throw them into a mass grave.
(That was sarcasm, by the way)

Owen_S

realies wrote: »

And you got that story from Russia Today, well known for its impartial opinions and straight news :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Nice use of the roll eyes, really validates your point. I suggest watching the Vice documentary on the topic. I provided a link to RT because it would seem more credible than other clear anti-war websites.

Clandestine

Billy86

Another reason is how lasting they can be. I think I remember hearing a few years back when New York had that 'dirty bomb' scare that either one huge dirty bomb, or a few ones of smaller size, would actually kill very, very few people when they went off. But the results down the line (cancers, mutations - particularly on unborn children, etc) would be huge and it would render the entire city of NY uninhabitable for the guts of 50 years.

Think of how insane that would be, if a New York or London or Tokyo or Paris - a major global city - was basically just gone, overnight. It's a pretty scary thought.

redtapestyl

It does seem strange to condemn the use of 1 type of weapon and condone the other.

"You can kill your civilians with guns, bombs, knives whatever just lay off the ol chemical weapons"

How about just not killing anyone instead ..

Sunnyisland

[QUOTE=Owen_S;86190731 Nice use of the roll eyes, really validates your point. I suggest watching the Vice documentary on the topic. I provided a link to RT because it would seem more credible than other clear anti-war websites.
http://rt.com/news/iraq-depleted-uranium-health-394/[/QUOTE]


RT is no more credible than any of the mainstream news outlets that you are on here complaining about :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: I like them eyes.

redtapestyl

realies wrote: »

RT is no more credible than any of the mainstream news outlets that you are on here complaining about :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: I like them eyes.

:rolleyes:

bumper234

redtapestyl wrote: »

It does seem strange to condemn the use of 1 type of weapon and condone the other.

"You can kill your civilians with guns, bombs, knives whatever just lay off the ol chemical weapons"

How about just not killing anyone instead ..

Yeah a world with no war. I wonder if that will ever happen?

Fattes

They are ineffective from a military perspective, and are indiscriminate in who they target during their dispersal. The have been long established as being terror weapon against civilians and military rather than having any real tactical purpose.

VONSHIRACH

I recently read a very interesting piece about a chemical weapons incident in WW2. The Germans launched an air raid on Allied ships docked at a port in Italy, Bari. The USA had a ship loaded with mustard gas, to be used if the situation required it, presumably if the Germans started using chemicals in combat. The ship was hit by the Germans and the town devastated by the mustard gas with thousands of casualties. This was hushed up at the time and for years afterwards. Much of modern chemotherapy stems from treatments for and studies on the effects of mustard gas poisoning.

http://www.historynet.com/world-war-ii-german-raid-on-bari.htm

wendell borton

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nK5fKFFqJe4