3 ms·
Those would be chemical weapons. Those can't be used, because they are inhumane.
by lolpep8 12y ago
Those would be chemical weapons. Those can't be used, because they are inhumane.
- andybak 12y agoI find Churchill's words to be fascinating when read closely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_British_use_of_chemical_weapons_in_Mesopotamia_in_1920 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_British_use_of_chemica... The wording is callous and shocking to my modern ears but - if you start with the premise that you are already in a violent conflict (I'm not addressing the issue of colonialism here - just the debate about the comparative ethics of bullets and explosives vs chemicals) then this sentence stands out: "It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas." We have some ridiculous Hollywood-fed beliefs that bullets and explosions create clean deaths and painless injuries.
- scotty79 12y agoNot really. Chemical weapons are applied unselectively and have a great potential of using against civilians. I don't think many people would mind guided poison arrows. But I appreciate your irony. :-)