1500 dead is not a very "mass" weapon of mass destruction

[FarCenter]

Within the first two to four months of the bombings, the acute effects killed 90,000–166,000 people in Hiroshima and 60,000–80,000 in Nagasaki, with roughly half of the deaths in each city occurring on the first day. The Hiroshima prefecture health department estimated that, of the people who died on the day of the explosion, 60% died from flash or flame burns, 30% from falling debris and 10% from other causes. During the following months, large numbers died from the effect of burns, radiation sickness, and other injuries, compounded by illness. In a US estimate of the total immediate and short term cause of death, 15–20% died from radiation sickness, 20–30% from burns, and 50–60% from other injuries, compounded by illness. In both cities, most of the dead were civilians, although Hiroshima had a sizeable garrison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

And the bombs used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quite primitive fission bombs of less than 1/10 the yield of modern thermonuclear warheads.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. so what is your proposed threshold?

when we say NO chemical weapons use...we have to mean it.

[FarCenter]

3. No teargas?

The Convention defines chemical weapons much more generally. The term chemical weapon is applied to any toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action. Munitions or other delivery devices designed to deliver chemical weapons, whether filled or unfilled, are also considered weapons themselves.

http://www.opcw.org/about-chemical-weapons/what-is-a-chemical-weapon/

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. oh good grief...

is there an emoticon for striking head on desk repeatedly?

[LearningCurve]

14. Will this serve?

[VanillaRhapsody]

15. yes...^^^ THAT

[Bjorn Against]

4. Then hold the Pentagon officials who approved the use of chemical weapons in the past accountable

Hold them accountable for their use of napalm and Agent Orange, hold them accountable for the use of depleted uranium, hold them accountable for the use of white phospherous in Fallujah, let's stop pretending that our military goes on noble missions and start holding the war criminals in the Pentagon accountable.

You are right that when we say no chemical weapons use we need to mean it and to show we mean it we should prosecute our own military officials who approved the use of chemical weapons.

[Arctic Dave]

5. High Explosives is a chemical reaction.

So everyone should stop using them.

[DirkGently]

10. Who gave the U.S. the judge, jury, executioner power here?

It's not international law or the Geneva Convention. Neither authorize us to unilaterally enforce anything with missile strikes.

We're a rogue nation, going rogue on other nations we accuse of being rogues.

Can't claim to be for the rules, then turn around and break them as a way to make others follow them.

[onehandle]

2. Not compared to gun deaths in the USA. Guns are a threat to national security.

That being said, 1500 is a lot more than your average NRAGOPteahadist fantasizes about.

[OmahaBlueDog]

6. Both chemical and biological weapons were utilized in WW I

They killed far fewer than the atomic blasts, but they are still considered WMDs.

OTOH, the firebombing of Dresden killed numbers comparable to Hiroshima and Nagasaki with conventional weapons.

Personally, I consider driving commercial jet aircraft into skyscrapers of unarmed non-combatants to be the use of a WMD. Had I been President, I'd have responded in kind. We'd have been pariahs for five years, and I'd have likely been impeached -- but it'd be the last time anyone tried that stunt again....ever.

[OnyxCollie]

7. Pressure cookers are determined to be WMD now.

[FarCenter]

8. Semantic silliness to sway the sheep...

[Throd]

9. 1500 here, 2000 there...adds up quick

[FarCenter]

12. They certainly do -- in the Congo the thousands added up to 5.4 million dead.

The Second Congo War (also known as the Great War of Africa) began in August 1998, little more than a year after the First Congo War and involving some of the same issues, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and officially ended in July 2003 when the Transitional Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo took power. However, hostilities have continued since then in the ongoing Lord's Resistance Army insurgency, and the Kivu and Ituri conflicts.

The deadliest war in modern African history, it has directly involved nine African nations, as well as about 20 armed groups. By 2008, the war and its aftermath had killed 5.4 million people, mostly from disease and starvation,[7] making the Second Congo War the deadliest conflict worldwide since World War II.[8] Millions more were displaced from their homes or sought asylum in neighbouring countries.[9]

Despite a formal end to the war in July 2003 and an agreement by the former belligerents to create a government of national unity, 1,000 people died daily in 2004 from easily preventable cases of malnutrition and disease.[10] The war and the conflicts afterwards[which?] were driven by, among other things, the trade in conflict minerals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Congo_War

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. Yeah and when we turn our back on it...

we are tacitly approving anyone else giving it a try...

[spanone]

16. unless you're one of the 1500 or a near relative, or a distant cousin.....

[FarCenter]

17. But that is true whether it is Sarin, white phosphorous or shrapnel -- dead is dead.

[ProSense]

18. Well, this is one way to absolve Assad.

Shorter OP: Chemical attack that kills 1,500 people, no biggie!

The UN is in the process of testing the samples. I guess you think that's a waste of time.

What an atrocious OP.

[FarCenter]

19. Who knows? Something may come out of the UN process if concerned nations work at it.

But it is sheer hypocrisy to describe the use of chemicals in Syria as a humanitarian tragedy that requires an extraordinary, unilateral act by the US, since we do not and have not acted when there have been far worse humanitarian tragedies.