5 ms·

>The use of chemical weapons has been considered a particularly heinous war crime since before WW2. By whom? Certainly not by the US. America bombarded Vietnam

by copx 13y ago

>The use of chemical weapons has been considered a particularly heinous war crime since before WW2. By whom? Certainly not by the US. America bombarded Vietnam with millions of gallons of Agent Orange. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use. It was the most massive use of chemical weapons in human history. Here is the US stance on chemical weapons in pictures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agent-Orange-dioxin-skin-damage-Vietnam.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agent-Orange-dioxin-skin-d... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agent-orange-dead-deformed-babies.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agent-orange-dead-deformed... (Warning NSFL) Next large scale use of chemical weapons? Iran-Iraq war, with America again being responsible, only in a support role this time though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_chemical_weapons_by_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_ch... So, when did the US suddenly decide that the use of chemical weapons is intolerable? The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife!

mpyne 13y ago
Agent Orange was intended and used as a defoliant, not an anti-personnel weapon. The U.S. was at least reasonably consistent there; many Vietnam veterans came back from the war also maimed by Agent Orange. As far as Iran-Iraq, many countries aided Saddam in his use of chemical weapons (on the battlefield and otherwise). If you were looking for something to damn the U.S. in particular, this would seem to apply: "On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that 'members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops, and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons.' The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement." Wikipedia discusses why President Reagan didn't seem to give a shit, but his opinion was hardly shared by the nation as a whole (who are, after all, still signed onto the 1925 Geneva Convention).
- johnchristopher 13y ago
  Agent Orange was intended and used as a defoliant, not an anti-personnel weapon. The U.S. was at least reasonably consistent there; many Vietnam veterans came back from the war also maimed by Agent Orange. You are twisting words around (a tendency that has been growing on HN for some time). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Use_in_the_Vietnam_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Use_in_the_Vietnam... Agent Orange was definitely used to gain the upper hand in the war. As early as 1966, resolutions were introduced to the United Nations charging that the U.S. was violating the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which regulated the use of chemical and biological weapons.[46][55]
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    >>> Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use. >> Agent Orange was intended and used as a defoliant, not an anti-personnel weapon. > You are twisting words around (a tendency that has been growing on HN for some time). His clarification is valid. Agent Orange was not intentionally used to kill and maim children. Its intended use was crop destruction. However ill-guided that may be, it's not the same as trying to kill people directly with chemical weapons, which is what was implied. > Agent Orange was definitely used to gain the upper hand in the war. The point of fighting in a war is to gain the upper hand.
    - johnchristopher 13y ago
      Agent Orange was not intentionally used to kill and maim children. Yes it was. Because, as you wrote yourself: Its intended use was crop destruction.[...] And from WP: The goal was to defoliate rural/forested land, depriving guerrillas of food and cover and clearing sensitive areas such as around base perimeters.[49] The program was also a part of a general policy of forced draft urbanization, which aimed to destroy the ability of peasants to support themselves in the countryside, forcing them to flee to the U.S. dominated cities, depriving the guerrillas of their rural support base.[8][9] From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare: Defoliants are used to quickly kill vegetation and deny its use for cover and concealment. It can also be used against agriculture and livestock to promote hunger and starvation. How the hell was that policy supposed not to hurt children or farmers not participating in the war ? "We destroyed their country and burned it but we didn't think it would starve anyone or people would die as a result". Do you use nuclear weapon to destroy infrastructure and when asked about human casualties then declare "Our intention was only to speed up the neutralization of city infrastructure, not to kill anyone." ? > Agent Orange was definitely used to gain the upper hand in the war. The point of fighting in a war is to gain the upper hand. So... agent orange was used to win the war, which is my point. And yes forced and global defoliation qualify as warfare tactics. And so agent orange was used because of the warfare advantage it would give. It was used as a weapon against a resource (crop) without a care for the people on it. So yes it was used against people. PS: My main point is that Agent Orange was used as a weapon on the ground of its intended consequences. That at that time they didn't fully consider the chemical effects on humans is highly convenient and suspect to me. Hence my reaction to the "it wasn't an anti-personnel weapon". And to support that, from the first WP page: Many experts at the time, including Arthur Galston, the biologist who developed and intensively studied 2,4,5-T and TCDD, opposed herbicidal warfare, due to concerns about the side effects to humans and the environment by indiscriminately spraying the chemical over a wide area. As early as 1966, resolutions were introduced to the United Nations charging that the U.S. was violating the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which regulated the use of chemical and biological weapons.[46][55]

by copx 13y ago

mpyne 13y ago

Agent Orange was intended and used as a defoliant, not an anti-personnel weapon. The U.S. was at least reasonably consistent there; many Vietnam veterans came back from the war also maimed by Agent Orange. As far as Iran-Iraq, many countries aided Saddam in his use of chemical weapons (on the battlefield and otherwise). If you were looking for something to damn the U.S. in particular, this would seem to apply: "On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that 'members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops, and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons.' The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement." Wikipedia discusses why President Reagan didn't seem to give a shit, but his opinion was hardly shared by the nation as a whole (who are, after all, still signed onto the 1925 Geneva Convention).

johnchristopher 13y ago
Agent Orange was intended and used as a defoliant, not an anti-personnel weapon. The U.S. was at least reasonably consistent there; many Vietnam veterans came back from the war also maimed by Agent Orange. You are twisting words around (a tendency that has been growing on HN for some time). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Use_in_the_Vietnam_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Use_in_the_Vietnam... Agent Orange was definitely used to gain the upper hand in the war. As early as 1966, resolutions were introduced to the United Nations charging that the U.S. was violating the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which regulated the use of chemical and biological weapons.[46][55]
- foobarbazqux 13y ago
  >>> Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use. >> Agent Orange was intended and used as a defoliant, not an anti-personnel weapon. > You are twisting words around (a tendency that has been growing on HN for some time). His clarification is valid. Agent Orange was not intentionally used to kill and maim children. Its intended use was crop destruction. However ill-guided that may be, it's not the same as trying to kill people directly with chemical weapons, which is what was implied. > Agent Orange was definitely used to gain the upper hand in the war. The point of fighting in a war is to gain the upper hand.
  - johnchristopher 13y ago
    Agent Orange was not intentionally used to kill and maim children. Yes it was. Because, as you wrote yourself: Its intended use was crop destruction.[...] And from WP: The goal was to defoliate rural/forested land, depriving guerrillas of food and cover and clearing sensitive areas such as around base perimeters.[49] The program was also a part of a general policy of forced draft urbanization, which aimed to destroy the ability of peasants to support themselves in the countryside, forcing them to flee to the U.S. dominated cities, depriving the guerrillas of their rural support base.[8][9] From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_warfare: Defoliants are used to quickly kill vegetation and deny its use for cover and concealment. It can also be used against agriculture and livestock to promote hunger and starvation. How the hell was that policy supposed not to hurt children or farmers not participating in the war ? "We destroyed their country and burned it but we didn't think it would starve anyone or people would die as a result". Do you use nuclear weapon to destroy infrastructure and when asked about human casualties then declare "Our intention was only to speed up the neutralization of city infrastructure, not to kill anyone." ? > Agent Orange was definitely used to gain the upper hand in the war. The point of fighting in a war is to gain the upper hand. So... agent orange was used to win the war, which is my point. And yes forced and global defoliation qualify as warfare tactics. And so agent orange was used because of the warfare advantage it would give. It was used as a weapon against a resource (crop) without a care for the people on it. So yes it was used against people. PS: My main point is that Agent Orange was used as a weapon on the ground of its intended consequences. That at that time they didn't fully consider the chemical effects on humans is highly convenient and suspect to me. Hence my reaction to the "it wasn't an anti-personnel weapon". And to support that, from the first WP page: Many experts at the time, including Arthur Galston, the biologist who developed and intensively studied 2,4,5-T and TCDD, opposed herbicidal warfare, due to concerns about the side effects to humans and the environment by indiscriminately spraying the chemical over a wide area. As early as 1966, resolutions were introduced to the United Nations charging that the U.S. was violating the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which regulated the use of chemical and biological weapons.[46][55]