# Why is using Sarin gas worse than using high explosives? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2013, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591 "2013-08-30T17:20:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2013, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/41 "2013-08-31T17:01:36Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Firebombing destroys buildings (or jungle, in the case of Vietnam), and that is its purpose. That’s not to say it couldn’t be used as a weapon of terror, but it does have legitimate military functions beyond killing people indiscriminately. Chemical weapons are pretty much there for people like Assad, Saddam Hussein and Kim Jong-un to use out of spite, revenge or some other evil\* purpose. The United States deliberately and overtly executed the firebombing campaign in Japan (and firebombing of the Dresden city center, miles away from the industrial sites and communications hub) to kill as many people as possible. Indeed, Curtis LeMay’s XXI Bomber Command measured the efficacy of a bombing run by the estimated number of deaths per tonnage of incindiary bombs dropped. The deaths of civilians–woman and children who were not involved in the war effort and had zero say or influence upon their government or the conduct of the war–were not incidental or collateral damage; they were the target of the attacks, done to convince the Japanese General Defense Command that they either agreed to unconditional surrender or the entire Japanese ‘race’ would be eradicated. Yes, nerve agents and toxins are indiscriminate anti-personnel weapons. So are napalm, cluster bombs, anti-perrsonel mines, thermobaric bombs, enhanced radiation (neutron) and multi-megaton yield ‘city buster’ nuclear weapons. All of these weapons are in the US arsenal. Pretending like chemical weapons are some special class of weapon which are only used by bad guys, and because the more enlightened powers eschew their use makes them more righteous is a bullshit rationale. The honest reason why the US no longer builds or maintains a chemical stockpile isn’t out of some sense of moral superiority; it is that the efficacy and control of chemical weapons is so poor compared to other, albeit more expensive, weapons of mass destruction and anti-personnel devices. > [@RickJay](#): > > In fairness, most of the world’s civilized nations have also agreed to stop using land mines, for much the same reason. Uh-huh. Which nations are those precisely? If we are being honest with ourselves, we have to acknowledge that in any open and unrestricted warfare, innocent people are going to be killed. It doesn’t matter if they are barbequed by napalm, smashed flat by a thermobaric bomb, or zapped by nerve agents. Nor, if there is a legitimate military objective, should we restrict military units from acting in the most effective and decisive means possible. Although it is not a popular idea to socialize with the pubic, a single aggressive but effective strike which kills a number of civilians but results in rapidly ending the conflict is far less damaging than a protracted conflict which destroys infrastructure and the ability to recover. Before we go into any war or use any weapon, the question shouldn’t be, “How many people is this going to kill?” but rather, “Is this necessary at all, and if so, is this the most effective way to accomplish the objective and end fighting?” If you can’t answer that question cleanly and unambiguously, limiting the number of deaths is irrelevant; they’re all pointless. All war is destructive and evil, no matter how enlightened your intentions; the question that should be asked by and of political and military leaders is, “How much evil do we have to do in order to do good?” Sgtranger ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 10:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/42 "2013-09-01T10:49:44Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Yes, nerve agents and toxins are indiscriminate anti-personnel weapons. So are napalm, cluster bombs, anti-perrsonel mines, thermobaric bombs, enhanced radiation (neutron) and multi-megaton yield ‘city buster’ nuclear weapons. All of these weapons are in the US arsenal. Pretending like chemical weapons are some special class of weapon which are only used by bad guys, and because the more enlightened powers eschew their use makes them more righteous is a bullshit rationale. The honest reason why the US no longer builds or maintains a chemical stockpile isn’t out of some sense of moral superiority; it is that the efficacy and control of chemical weapons is so poor compared to other, albeit more expensive, weapons of mass destruction and anti-personnel devices. Well the US is only semi-enlightened. 🙂 They refuse to join the ranks of more civilized countries in banning the use of cluster bombs and anti-personnel mines. To be fair to Assad, Syria hasn’t agreed to a chemical weapons ban anyway. Presumably the American government makes the assumption that, because they haven’t ratified treaties on land mines or cluster bombs, they could, in theory, use them quite happily without expecting France to launch a few “surgical strikes”. If you want to prove that the US is somewhat hypocritical in making a fuss about Assad’s use of chemical weapons, you’ve got a point. It’s one of several good reasons why the US shouldn’t take a leadership role in any strikes. But personally, I’d rather see all the weapons you mentioned outlawed. You can look at chemical weapons bans as an anomaly, or as a first step. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/43 "2013-09-01T13:16:45Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > If you want to prove that the US is somewhat hypocritical in making a fuss about Assad’s use of chemical weapons, you’ve got a point. It’s one of several good reasons why the US shouldn’t take a leadership role in any strikes. But personally, I’d rather see all the weapons you mentioned outlawed. You can look at chemical weapons bans as an anomaly, or as a first step. On this point we are in violent agreement. But I don’t expect to see this happen any time soon. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![SirGalahad](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/71c47a/32.png) [@SirGalahad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SirGalahad)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/44 "2013-09-01T18:46:38Z")
I can think of at least one way that Sarin is arguably better than getting ‘sploded. Atropine probably won’t help much if you’re blown up, but maybe better than nothin’ if you’re nerve gassed. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/45 "2013-09-01T19:00:34Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > The United States deliberately and overtly executed the firebombing campaign in Japan (and firebombing of the Dresden city center, miles away from the industrial sites and communications hub) to kill as many people as possible. The infamous Dresden firebombing was more a British effort than an American one. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/46 "2013-09-01T19:03:02Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > Uh-huh. Which nations are those precisely? Google’s your friend. > **[Ottawa Treaty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty)** > > The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction of 1997, known informally as the Ottawa Treaty, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, or often simply the Mine Ban Treaty, aims at eliminating anti-personnel landmines (APLs) around the world. > By August 2022, 164 states had ratified or acceded to the treaty. Major powers, which are also past and current manufacturers of landmines, are not parties to the treaty. ... ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/47 "2013-09-01T19:04:37Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > The infamous Dresden firebombing was more a British effort than an American one. The actual tonnage of ordnance dropped is almost 2:1 of American versus British. However, the point is taken that the motivation was largely one of revenge by and on the behalf of the British for the bombing of London and terror attacks using the V-1 and V-2 rockets. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/48 "2013-09-01T19:10:17Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Google’s your friend. > > [Ottawa Treaty - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty) “…nonsignatories include the United States, Russia, China, Myanmar, United Arab Emirates, Cuba, Egypt, India, Israel and Iran.” Well, it is good to see that the US is in such good company, anyway. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Ad\_Astra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Ad\_Astra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ad_Astra)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/49 "2013-09-01T22:58:47Z")
> [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](#): > > “…nonsignatories include the United States, Russia, China, Myanmar, United Arab Emirates, Cuba, Egypt, India, Israel and Iran.” > > Well, it is good to see that the US is in such good company, anyway. > > Stranger IIRC, the main reason the United States isn’t a signatory is our use of mines along the DMZ between the two Koreas. I seem to remember learning about that in one of my ethics/military history courses, and I’m searching for a better cite than “I think I heard…” ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/50 "2013-09-01T23:16:53Z")
> [@Ad\_Astra](#): > > IIRC, the main reason the United States isn’t a signatory is our use of mines along the DMZ between the two Koreas. I seem to remember learning about that in one of my ethics/military history courses, and I’m searching for a better cite than “I think I heard…” You are mostly correct in that assertion, which doesn’t make it any more justifiable. The Department of State has stated a policy of using only non-persistent mines (i.e. mines that would become inoperable after ~2 years) under the theory that this is somehow more justifiable. The reality is that ordnance placed and abandoned can still kill indescriminately, as can cluster bombs and wide scale attacks. Small powers and dictators like chemical weapons because they offer some degree of parity in destructive capability and offense against opposing troops at a vastly lower production costs than modern ordnance weapons. (Seriously, a small team of chemists in a well-equipped commercial lab could produce enough chemical agents or nerve toxins to create the same casualty effect as an ordnance factory’s annual production.) However, the reality is that they make fairly shitty weapons both in control of the effect and the effectiveness against prepared suitably troops, as well as being more dangerous to handle than properly designed ordnance weapons. But for second rate powers they’re the best they can afford. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![split\_p\_j](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e19b73/32.png) [@split\_p\_j](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/split_p_j)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/51 "2013-09-01T23:33:04Z")
It’s not worse. It’s just a good excuse for the US to get involved publically, so that the long goal, Iran, can be achieved. Most likely the attack was carried out by CIA assets, AKA "al-queda ". So now we can say we’re just here to help, as we destroy the country. Never mind the fact the we used agent orange in Vietnam or depleted uranium in Iraq, which people still feel the effect to this day. It’s OK if we do that because we are good. ---
**Author:** ![lisiate](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f05b48/32.png) [@lisiate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lisiate)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/52 "2013-09-02T00:51:39Z")
> [@Ranchoth](#): > > It is simply a question of fashion, changing as she does between long and short skirts for women. > > [(source)](http://www.whale.to/b/winston_churchill11.html) 😃 Chilling, and to the point memo. Here’s the conclusion: > [@](#): > > 1. I quite agree that it may be several weeks or even months before I shall ask you to drench Germany with poison gas, and if we do it, let us do it one hundred per cent. In the meanwhile, I want the matter studied in cold blood by sensible people and not by that particular set of psalm-singing uniformed defeatists which one runs across now here now there. Pray address yourself to this. It is a big thing and can only be discarded for a big reason. I shall of course have to square Uncle Joe and the President; but you need not bring this into your calculations at the present time. Just try to find out what it is like on its merits. When you have to consider how you’re going to justify your actions on moral grounds to Joseph Stalin you know you’ve gone far beyond the normal bounds of decency. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 4:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591/53 "2013-09-02T04:25:43Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > To be fair to Assad, Syria hasn’t agreed to a chemical weapons ban anyway. Syria signed the [Geneva Protocol](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol#State_parties) against chemical and biological weapons in 1968. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-using-sarin-gas-worse-than-using-high-explosives/667591.md?page=2)