> World War II didn’t have gas [...] Ummm, what now? 6 million Jews and other groups would disagree with that. Ok, I'm being a little quippy, obviously you we

> World War II didn’t have gas [...] Ummm, what now? 6 million Jews and other groups would disagree with that. Ok, I'm being a little quippy, obviously you weren't referring to the Holocaust, rather to the actual war. But I think there are actual reasons the world bans certain forms of warfare. They really are worse, in various ways. E.g. chemical weapons, as far as can tell, are worse to die from than a gunshot, leave more and worse long-term damage for people that didn't die, are worse to watch so leave worse psychological damage to survivors, etc. The world largely agrees that this is a more barbaric way to kill someone. And you know what? The world coming together to decide that some things are too barbaric, so we won't use them, is a pretty good outcome. Less ways to kill each other is a good thing! I wish people extended this to more forms of warfare, not less. (There are also game-theoretic reasons to police certain things more than others. You can't possibly ban every form of warfare, at least now - but if everyone agrees to be super-harsh against anyone using certain methods, we can at least stop those methods from being used. Just a diffuse "super harsh on anyone doing warfare" isn't feasible and won't have an affect, but a directed "super harsh on anyone using chemical weapons" actually might lower the body count, which again, is a good thing!)