Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Whats the problem with chemical weapons ?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    P_1
    Registered Users Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Fattes wrote: »
    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.

    I think the main issue with them from a military standpoint is that they have the potential to hurt yourself as much as they hurt the enemy. I mean a bullet isn't exactly going to fly back and hit the guy who shot it, a cloud of mustard gas can.


  • Options
    #33
    Irish Halo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,441 ✭✭✭Irish Halo


    They're also illegal under various international agreements:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol#Chemical_weapons_prohibitions


  • Options
    #34
    IvySlayer
    Registered Users Posts: 17,187 ✭✭✭✭IvySlayer


    A bullet is designed to kill you quickly, chemicals can cause suffering and pain. They can't be contained once released and these weapons are designed to target groups rather than individuals.


  • Options
    #35
    KingOfFairview
    Registered Users Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭KingOfFairview


    IvySlayer wrote: »
    A bullet is designed to kill you quickly, chemicals can cause suffering and pain. They can't be contained once released and these weapons are designed to target groups rather than individuals.

    ...which all applies to certain types of bombs too.

    I agree with the OP, it's more of a taboo than anything. However, it's a taboo Adolf Hitler was unwilling to break, so maybe it's a good taboo.


  • Options
    #36
    downonthefarm
    Registered Users Posts: 1,308 ✭✭✭downonthefarm


    whoever did this.....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    goose2005
    Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    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 ..

    The idea of rules of engagement, jus in bello has always existed.
    KingOfFairview wrote: »
    ...which all applies to certain types of bombs too.

    Yes, and certain bombs are banned because of it.


  • Options
    #38
    Voltex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Voltex


    Sarin is a nasty chemical weapon. People who hear the initial attack may run to shelters or basements...the gas is both odourless and invisible, so it cant be seen and its also heavier than air so it will seep into the shelters and basements people use to hide.

    It disrupts transmitter's in the central nervous system causing most people to die from asphyxiation.

    During WW1 soliders feared gas attacks more than anything else..it became a terror weapon rather than a tactical one.


  • Options
    #39
    Sh1tbag OToole
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,973 ✭✭✭Sh1tbag OToole


    Weapons that the USA doesnt see as useful enough to add to their arsenal (chemical,bio) and weapons that countries other than the USA and a few other chum-buddy nations havnt been handed the right from God to develop (nukes) are a massive no-no.

    They are also a convenient excuse to invade a country that has oil


  • Options
    #40
    downonthefarm
    Registered Users Posts: 1,308 ✭✭✭downonthefarm


    so who are the prime suspects? right now my money is on israel


  • Options
    #41
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    downonthefarm wrote: »
    so who are the prime suspects? right now my money is on israel

    Why?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Freddy Smelly
    Registered Users Posts: 980 ✭✭✭Freddy Smelly


    if chemical weapons are used more often the yanks wont be able to sell the rest of the world guns, bullets and bombs. i thought everyone new that


  • Options
    #43
    downonthefarm
    Registered Users Posts: 1,308 ✭✭✭downonthefarm


    bumper234 wrote: »
    Why?

    they are looking to de-stabilise the whole middle east


  • Options
    #44
    theGEM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 133 ✭✭theGEM


    downonthefarm wrote: »
    they are looking to de-stabilise the whole middle east

    No they're not.


  • Options
    #45
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    downonthefarm wrote: »
    they are looking to de-stabilise the whole middle east

    I think you will find that the last thing Israel wants is an unstable middle east.


  • Options
    #46
    KingOfFairview
    Registered Users Posts: 1,388 ✭✭✭KingOfFairview


    downonthefarm wrote: »
    so who are the prime suspects? right now my money is on israel

    Absolutely no prospect whatsoever that this is true, it would be the last thing Israel would want.
    Freddy Smelly wrote: »
    if chemical weapons are used more often the yanks wont be able to sell the rest of the world guns, bullets and bombs. i thought everyone new that

    At one stage this may have been a motivating factor, but arms sales make relatively small amounts of money for the americans these days, I don;t think the risk of blowback would be considered worth the money to be made.


  • Options
    #47
    downonthefarm
    Registered Users Posts: 1,308 ✭✭✭downonthefarm


    theGEM wrote: »
    No they're not.

    i think they are ,they are looking to expand into syria,then turkey.
    and with the black lad in the white house


  • Options
    #48
    Eight Ball
    Closed Accounts Posts: 906 ✭✭✭Eight Ball


    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.

    RT is just like sky news as in it reports the news that they need to shape their agenda. Neither are serious news networks.


  • Options
    #49
    theGEM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 133 ✭✭theGEM


    downonthefarm wrote: »
    i think they are ,they are looking to expand into syria,then turkey.
    and with the black lad in the white house

    Well I guess they need some lebensraum.


  • Options
    #50
    Lightbulb Sun
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,405 ✭✭✭Lightbulb Sun


    They have longer reaching consequences. See Chernobyl. That wasn't a weapon but you get the picture. Birth defects and so on in future generations.


  • Options
    #51
    theGEM
    Closed Accounts Posts: 133 ✭✭theGEM


    I've just seen the photo of Obama drawing the Red Line...

    http://www.popularresistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Pepper-Spray-Officer-Pike.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Voltex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Voltex


    Eight Ball wrote: »
    RT is just like sky news as in it reports the news that they need to shape their agenda. Neither are serious news networks.
    The fact RT have Max Keiser as their markets man..nuff said!


  • Options
    #53
    Voltex
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Voltex


    downonthefarm wrote: »
    i think they are ,they are looking to expand into syria,then turkey.
    and with the black lad in the white house
    Get rid of the Assad regime who is a close buddy of Iran...makes sense, but No it wasn't Israel.


Advertisement