Yeah, if humanitarian protection of civilians is the casus belli, we’ve already dropped the ball. The mistake was to draw a “red line” for the manner of killing, rather than killing. There is no win available, but then again there wasn’t really one ever.
I dunno where you are going with this. After all, “we” happily used poision gas in WW1.
Obviously, over time, standards change.
If today the government of Syria nuked Hama, we’d be alarmed any pissed about it - even though the US did, indeed, use nukes in WW2. Are you saying “we” have no right to judge that?
The problem with poison gas isn’t that other weapons do not kill civilians, it is that poision gas isn’t terribly effective for anything except to kill civilians. It’s a terror weapon, pure and simple.
Killers judging killers. At some point, there’s no use being judgmental, just admit you’re a predator out to be the baddest monster in the jungle, and you intend to beat down or intimidate all the other predators … why does there have to be a moral high-ground? We think we’re the “good” guys, they think they’re the “good” guys, it’s all meaningless once we start killing each other.
Don’t agree. It is possible to define certain behavious as morally worse than others, even in warfare, and refrain from committing them.
So is firebombing, and we terrorized the living shit out of the civilian population of the Japanese Home Islands during WWII, and large swaths of Viet Nam during that conflict without ever acknowleding that we committed attrocities against civilian populations.
Claiming, “…yes, but at least we didn’t use chemical weapons, so we’re still right,” is the worst kind of equivocation. War is hell, and innocent people will inevitably be maimed and killed. That they were not maimed and killed by chemical weapons is pretty much irrelevant to the affected parties, but when it is used as a justification for why the actions of Nation X are bad while actions of similar effect are okay when we do it is not just a morally and ethically suspect position but it also allows us to avoid examining the real effects of our actions.
Stranger
Here’s the Washington Post’s answer (see point 8) (warning - counts against your monthly quota for WP stories if you’re a freeloader like me).
It covers a lot of the same ground above - civilian death, horrible pain - but I think it does it well.
I’m not claiming that fire-bombing cities was, or now is, “morally right”.
The morality of warfare is made up of two elements: the morality of initiating/participating in combat in the first place; and secondly, the morality of behaviour in that combat.
In WW2, the US and Western Allies were generally morally correct to go to war against their enemies - for example, the US was correct to war against Japan, because Japan attacked the US.
However, once involved in that war, the US used methods which were considered morally questionable even at the time and have been debated ever since - like fire-bombing (and nuking) cities. The fact that they were morally right to go to war did not guarantee that everything they did in the war was morally right.
Today, standards have evolved. While some questioned the morality of fire-bombing cities in WW2, most people accepted it as a necessity of war. Today, most people woud not accept firebombing of cities as a legitimate form of warfare.
The horrors of WW1 convinced people of the inhumanity of chemical weapons. The horrors of WW2 convinced people of the inhumanity of randomly firebombing cities and using nukes. Gradually, standards of behaviour are evolving.
I think people are making this much harder than it really is. The answer lies in the name Weapons of MASS Destruction. (ie the Scale of the weapon)
A chemical or biological weapon is different than a explosive for the same reason that a Nuclear weapon is different than a big bomb. A single Nuke can take out a large section of a city. Most single bombs can’t take out anything larger than a medium size house. (At least not while still being easily deployable.)
A single bomb or explosive under normal military conditions is almost never going to kill more than a dozen people or so. A chemical weapon used under the “correct” conditions can kill hundreds.
The resources necessary to kill people on a mass scale in a short amount of time with bombs and bullets is only available to World class military. The resources necessary to kill people on a mass scale with WMD is achievable even by the poorest nation states if no one actively tries to prevent them.
The reason behind the bans on WMD depends on your point of view of the major powers. ie
Only major powers want the ability to kill on a mass scale so they can bully everyone else.
OR
WMDs are such a horrible weapon that the fewer the people who have access to them the better. Either way the effect is the same.
I’m afraid we’re “evolving” to just nuke 'em. It may be as a response to an enemy launch, but it doesn’t matter at that point … we’re violent apes, who happen to just be smart enough to rationalize warfare on moral grounds. I understand the need to defend yourself, and for a country to defend itself. It’s still reptile-brain mayhem in the end, because folks get killed and displaced. I hoped (back in the day) that by now we’d have improved diplomacy on the scale of a problem like Syria to the level that breaking things and killing people was off the table.
Just to note, it’s de jure, not de facto. Prohibitions on the use of chemical weapons go back to the 1st Hague and beyond. Syria deposited an instrument to be a party to the Geneva Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare on 17 December 1968.
I have to agree that this is the heart of the reason. Additional reasons for prohibiting their use exist, but at its core the reason it’s wrong is that it feels wrong.
You mean, “when we carry out capital punishment in the United States.” Other than St. Kitts and Nevis, it doesn’t look like there is any other Western country that practices capital punishment.
It is simply a question of fashion, changing as she does between long and short skirts for women.
Moving this one to Great Debates from General Questions.
samclem, moderator
I agree with you—its a VERY good article.
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.
I think there are a lot of reasons why chemical weapons are considered worse than conventional ones. Most of those reasons don’t sound very good alone, but put together, they’re a little more convincing, I think.
The distinction is somewhat arbitrary, but we draw similarly arbitrary lines all the time. In many places, you’ll get in more trouble for having a handgun than having a knife. This isn’t because you couldn’t, in theory, inflict similar injuries with a knife and a handgun. There are fewer legitimate uses for a handgun, though, and it’s a lot easier to kill indiscriminately with one, deliberately or accidentally.
I think part of it is also the unconventional nature of chemical weapons. In the UK, our Bill of Rights forbids “cruel and unusual punishment”. This was later used in the Eighth Amendment to the US Constitution, which is where most of you will have heard the phrase. Clearly, we consider “unusual” methods more sinister. That’s not particularly rational, but I’m all for having rules of war like this. It may be rational to shoot medics evacuating wounded soldiers, but I’m glad that, in general, we don’t do it.
The Washington Post article bup posted also makes the point that there’s a strong incentive to use chemical weapons if you suspect the other side will do the same, so we’re all better off if we make it very clear that it’s not done. Personally, I think this is a good argument for looking beyond this year or even this decade for the consequences of our inaction over Syria. It’s a bit of a “slippery slope” argument, but I think we should seriously consider whether or not we want a world where the use of chemical weapons are tolerated.
*I don’t generally like this word, but I can’t think of a more appropriate one here.
Playing games of who did what and when and judging actions on the basis of hipocracy, rather than on merits, leads us to equally absurd conclusions. If US firebombing in WWII is relevant to what is happening in Syria today, then one might be tempted to conclude that our space program today should be abandoned because decades ago the United States benefitted by using Nazis for our own national ends.
Ultimately, what the US did in any past war is irrelevant to whether or not the US intervenes in Syria; just as the peculiar institution is irrelevant to our opposition to gross human rights abuses that occur in North Korea, China, Sudan, or elsewhere. Sure, those countries love to point out the problem of race relations in the US, but there are reasons why tu quoque arguments shouldn’t be taken seriously.
I am extremely wary of a military attack on Syria because other than taking a firm stand in favor of the laws of war, I severely doubt that intervention is going to produce a favorable outcome for us.
Relevant Duffel Blog post. http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/08/syria-civil-war/
In fairness, most of the world’s civilized nations have also agreed to stop using land mines, for much the same reason.
I think one of the issues here is not that poison gas is inherently worse than, say, carpet bombing, but that it IS an international rule that the world’s countries have generally followed for a century, and rules of war are so hard to keep that the fact we have managed to keep this one going merits defending in just to continue defending the very possibility that we can HAVE rules of warfare.
That was very good, if depressing.