Is killing 1000 civilians with chem weapons worse than killing them with conventional weapons?

[Avalux]

I'm bothered by this line of reasoning that's being used to justify bombing Syria. Assad has killed upwards of tens of thousands of innocent civilians with conventional weapons, yet no one thought that warranted stopping him.

Killing is still killing, no matter how it's done.

[beveeheart]

1. Or worse than killing civilians with handguns here in the USA?

[treestar]

2. Most countries do not agree with that

That is why they signed the UN Convention against their use. They are considered unfair even in war. By a majority of the world.

They can kill a lot of people more easily. They are meant to terrorize more than to gain ground in a war. They are more likely to be used on civilians.

[Avalux]

5. Yes I know all of that.

Regulating war to make it kinder and gentler is a bit silly.

[treestar]

11. All's fair in war

Though the world is trying to make some inroads against that.

[JI7]

12. not really that silly at all

[SummerSnow]

3. k&r

You know what , wouldn't it be great if some reporter at the White House asked Obama that question? Love to know the response. Maybe I need to acquire one of those press passes.

[pampango]

4. Or the use of atomic weapons like Hiroshima compared to fire bombing Tokyo or Hamburg in WWII?

Thousands of times as many people were killed by conventional weapons in WWII than by atomic ones. Whether one feels the use of atomic weapons on Japan was justified or not, most realize that the use of atomic bombs was a threshold of sorts.

[eissa]

6. Death by conventional weapons is only "collateral damage"

and therefore does not count. At least when we use them. Not sure if it applies to others.

[malaise]

7. Put this is different killing

You have to punish someone so they know who is boss.
It's freaking crazy.

[LibAsHell]

8. Yeah, I guess

Coz the bombs kill them instantly, probably, so, it's like, faster.

[randome]

9. Chemical and biological weaponry 'hang around' after their use.

They can keep harming or even killing years into the future.

So can depleted uranium.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Actually yes, but it has nothing to do with the dead

It has to do with survivors. The weapons weaken immune systems for a lifetime, and cause breathing problems for the rest of the natural life of survivors.

They were not banned due to the dead, though mustard gas was horrific enough. They were banned due to the lost generation that actually survived the trenches.

And also it breaks a protocol that we were willing to break in 1945 with the invasion of the main islands (we were willing to use mustard gas, we even considered dropping it on nine cities before the invasion of the Home Islands. So we used nukes).

The question in my mind is not whether it is worst or not, though the death can be more horrific. The matter goes into three aspects.

1.- Who? It is not clear to me that this was only the government, nor is this the first time. So if this is not the first time, why now?

2.- Why? I am not convinced we are doing this for the reasons stated. These are appeals to emotion to get us involved. Look under the onion, for there is more to this than the children. Per usual is control of the chess board and resources, but war is ultimately about that.

3.- Is this genocide? (That should be the red line imo for multiple reasons). So far it is not crossed to that point.

Yes, some folks are referring to Rwanda, and internally and externally displaced people are up there. But it has not yet become an open genocide. I guess Nazi comparisons are truly falling flat at this point.

Oh and no, I am not advocating getting involved, but you asked if this was worst. Yes, yes it is. And from a responder POV it is a nightmare scenario as well.