3 ms·

This is an excellent and well written essay that answers its own question. But I will offer my own answer. Grooups generally don't use chemical weapons becaus

by blunte 7y ago

This is an excellent and well written essay that answers its own question. But I will offer my own answer. Grooups generally don't use chemical weapons because such use is too obvious too unsettling to viewers/supporters. They want the outcome, whatever it may be, but they don't want to look like they are greedy or insensitive or anti(or counter)-religious [generally speaking, they don't want to appear overtly confrontational]. Things must be done just slightly less aggressively than will upset the general population/supporters who fund the endeavors. In Earth-time, this discussion is mostly academic. The horrors which we inflict upon each other is far less than the likely destruction we invite upon ourselves as a species through our collective behaviors (environmentally speaking). The human existence on this planet is probably (in the mathematical sense) very short. I suspect the real concern is that we or someone we know may suffer some extended period of pain because of chemical or other non-instant-death conflict. People think they are afraid of dying, but usually it is more that they are afraid of a slow death which includes pain and anguish.

jvanderbot 7y ago
This is, in fact, explicitly stated in the article. "This isn’t a value question, but a value-against-replacement question – why maintain, issue, store, and shoot expensive chemical munitions if cheap, easier to store, easier to manufacture high explosive munitions are both more obtainable and also better? When you add the geopolitical and morale impact on top of that – you sacrifice diplomatic capital using such weapons and potentially demoralize your own soldiers, who don’t want to see themselves as delivering inhumane weapons – it’s pretty clear why would wouldn’t bother."
mythrwy 7y ago
Humans are amazingly resilient. Like mice, but to the n'th degree. Human existence on this planet isn't going to end any time soon. Even if the planet heats up. Even if there is trash in the oceans. But there might be a whole lot less of us and life might be a lot less pleasant.
- outworlder 7y ago
  This is true. But our bodies require very specific conditions to survive. We can offset them with tech, but only to a degree. Most of it requires some semblance of civilization to maintain. Disrupt that, and we are in for a very bad time.
tehjoker 7y ago
It probably has more to do with something like gas being easier to produce so western countries can paint poorer countries as villains more easily by showing how they violate human rights. U.S. weapons such as napalm, white phosphorous, cluster munitions, and land mines disfigure entire countries, people, and children but the media and military have such a lock on the public discourse that these images and stories are very sparsely shared. Images of the bombing and napalm in Vietnam generated an incredible backlash so the pentagon and their friends in the media conglomerates have been very circumspect. This is not in any way to condone the use of gas, far from it. It is to condemn the actions of the US military and the strategic planners for using human rights as a cudgel when our own crimes are so stark. Note that the US provided Saddam with chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq trench warfare of the 1980s. We later invaded Iraq to retrieve weapons we gave him.
- dmurray 7y ago
  That's still the tail waggimg the dog. Once you decide that a weapon or tactic is ineffective for you, but might be useful for your enemies, then you portray it as inhumane and sign treaties about it. There will always be some weapon or tactic you can treat in this way.

by blunte 7y ago

jvanderbot 7y ago

This is, in fact, explicitly stated in the article. "This isn’t a value question, but a value-against-replacement question – why maintain, issue, store, and shoot expensive chemical munitions if cheap, easier to store, easier to manufacture high explosive munitions are both more obtainable and also better? When you add the geopolitical and morale impact on top of that – you sacrifice diplomatic capital using such weapons and potentially demoralize your own soldiers, who don’t want to see themselves as delivering inhumane weapons – it’s pretty clear why would wouldn’t bother."

mythrwy 7y ago

Humans are amazingly resilient. Like mice, but to the n'th degree. Human existence on this planet isn't going to end any time soon. Even if the planet heats up. Even if there is trash in the oceans. But there might be a whole lot less of us and life might be a lot less pleasant.

outworlder 7y ago
This is true. But our bodies require very specific conditions to survive. We can offset them with tech, but only to a degree. Most of it requires some semblance of civilization to maintain. Disrupt that, and we are in for a very bad time.

tehjoker 7y ago

It probably has more to do with something like gas being easier to produce so western countries can paint poorer countries as villains more easily by showing how they violate human rights. U.S. weapons such as napalm, white phosphorous, cluster munitions, and land mines disfigure entire countries, people, and children but the media and military have such a lock on the public discourse that these images and stories are very sparsely shared. Images of the bombing and napalm in Vietnam generated an incredible backlash so the pentagon and their friends in the media conglomerates have been very circumspect. This is not in any way to condone the use of gas, far from it. It is to condemn the actions of the US military and the strategic planners for using human rights as a cudgel when our own crimes are so stark. Note that the US provided Saddam with chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq trench warfare of the 1980s. We later invaded Iraq to retrieve weapons we gave him.

dmurray 7y ago
That's still the tail waggimg the dog. Once you decide that a weapon or tactic is ineffective for you, but might be useful for your enemies, then you portray it as inhumane and sign treaties about it. There will always be some weapon or tactic you can treat in this way.