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.
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?”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Chilling, and to the point memo. Here’s the conclusion:
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.
