It’s not that chemical weapons are more lethal than conventional ones, they’re just more grisly and less discriminate. Chemical weapons are poorly targeted and subject to the vagaries of the wind and so are inherently a threat to civilian populations – or, to be more specific in terms devised during their early use in WW1, they come back on your own troops. Thus, the civilian population argument is one which masks the reality of the potential damage they can do tot those who use them.
If you intend to use chemical weapons, you must use them on civilians and the enemy … while making sure your forces are far far away.
If you are a Western Power, and the “enemy” is Middle Eastern or Asian, the idea is to use conventional weapons and say “opps” when they kill the civilians.
As has been said, “The ban on chemical weapons, in other words, is proof that humanity can make war a little more decent. Consequently, its continued success is vital to all future efforts to make war a little more decent. There is a kind of beauty in that, but much less so when you recall the 100,000 Syrians killed by nonchemical weapons.” [Washington Post, 9/7/13] Which went on to say, “we should imagine that “it’s 2035, and this-or-that dictator is thinking of using chemical weapons. Do you want them to say Assad used them on a large scale in August of 2013, nothing happened, …””
Gee 2035 cited in the Washington Post … where have we seen that date before … could it be in the posts below, or maybe in “Saint Paul’s Joke”?
As the WP concedes, we have a bit of a problem with the use of chemical weapons by Syria: “almost every country on Earth has signed the treaty against the use of chemical weapons; Syria is a rare holdout.” If Syria has NOT signed the accord, then we have no legal grounds for holding them to the terms of the accord. They are not part of the treaty system and are therefore free to use any weapon they wish INSIDE THEIR OWN BORDERS!
To use any weapon outside their borders is would be an act of war against the nation whose territory they are used on. If any nation attacks Syria, they are declaring war on a sovereign state – they are the aggressor. I am reminded of the ancient Oracle: “The first one into the war will lose.” That is, the nation who attacks is the one who will ultimately lose the war. Doubt that? Look at Korea, or Vietnam. Look at Germany in the first and second world wars. Pick the point in history you wish to focus on – how many times has the aggressor ultimately won?
2035 – the year when Judgment Day begins. Do we make it happen, or do we work to avoid causing that stupid calculation to be correct?
For now, it seems we are doing all in our power to make it a self-fulfilling prophecy. Does it matter that it is based on math that is three thousand years old? Or the math as interpreted by Sir Isaac Newton? Or the math displayed in “Saint Paul’s Joke”?
THE MOST HARM TO THE MOST PEOPLE
IT APPEARS TO BE THE HUMAN WAY OF LIFE
LOOK AT THE RED – STAY CLEAR OF THEM… THEY DIDN’T SIGN.