Syria poison gas

[MU82]

I don't want this to be a political thread about the merits of taking action against Syria.

I just want to ask a question that genuinely perplexes me:

Why is a poison-gas attack worse than any number of other kinds of attacks?

If Assad had "only" bombed the hell out of Douma and killed half its citizens, including kids and women, how outraged would world leaders be? Because that basically is what Assad has been doing the last several years - killing tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of his own countrymen. But the world only really got outraged when poison gas was used.

I certainly am NOT defending the use of poison gas (obviously). I just am perplexed about why bombings and other methods used to murder thousands elicit little more than a shoulder shrug but poison gas is the red line that demands military response from other nations.

[jsglow]

Not sure other than to suggest that the horror stems from WWI where this new technology for the times seemed to cross the line of human decency.  With the huge exception of Hitler's Final Solution, I don't believe it was used as a battlefield weapon in WWII at all.  Be an interesting academic study about why it fits where it does in the world mindset.

[Hards Alumni]

I don't want this to be a political thread about the merits of taking action against Syria.

I just want to ask a question that genuinely perplexes me:

Why is a poison-gas attack worse than any number of other kinds of attacks?

If Assad had "only" bombed the hell out of Douma and killed half its citizens, including kids and women, how outraged would world leaders be? Because that basically is what Assad has been doing the last several years - killing tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of his own countrymen. But the world only really got outraged when poison gas was used.

I certainly am NOT defending the use of poison gas (obviously). I just am perplexed about why bombings and other methods used to murder thousands elicit little more than a shoulder shrug but poison gas is the red line that demands military response from other nations.

Gas isn't as controllable, kills totally indiscriminately, and the way that people die is horrific.

[GGGG]

Gas isn't as controllable, kills totally indiscriminately, and the way that people die is horrific.

Sounds like the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Anyway, I understand the initial question.  What is going on in Syria has been horrific regardless of the gas attacks, but now the use of gas is a bridge too far?

[muwarrior69]

I don't want this to be a political thread about the merits of taking action against Syria.

I just want to ask a question that genuinely perplexes me:

Why is a poison-gas attack worse than any number of other kinds of attacks?

If Assad had "only" bombed the hell out of Douma and killed half its citizens, including kids and women, how outraged would world leaders be? Because that basically is what Assad has been doing the last several years - killing tens of thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands) of his own countrymen. But the world only really got outraged when poison gas was used.

I certainly am NOT defending the use of poison gas (obviously). I just am perplexed about why bombings and other methods used to murder thousands elicit little more than a shoulder shrug but poison gas is the red line that demands military response from other nations.

All is fair in love and war; until it isn't.

[GGGG]

All is fair in love and war; until it isn't.

That's a pretty darn good summary. 

[Benny B]

Poison gas as a weapon has a psychological component that essentially turns it into a weapon of torture.

Conventional	Gas
You can see a bomb	You can't see gas
You can hear a gun fire	You can't hear gas
Can kill you instantly	Can inflict tortuous pain
Prognosis can be ascertained	Unknown physiological effects

Bottom line is this... with a conventional weapon, there's usually some sort of warning, and you know what's happening to you... if you get shot, you can feel the bullet; missile strikes your house, you can see the damage. 

Gas... you don't know where it is or what's happening until you've already succumbed.  Not to mention, conventional weapons are precision weapons compared to gas.  You can control where a bullet goes much easier than you can control where gas goes.

The comparison is a lot like pornography... either you understand it or you don't.  But here's an example... let's say that gangs are roaming your neighborhood and breaking into houses and murdering people that, let's say, don't have Christmas ornaments in their trees.  So you have two options: 1) put Christmas ornaments in your trees in the hopes you'll be left alone or 2) grab your AR-15 and put 911 on speed dial.  Feel pretty good about your chances, right?  At least you feel like you have some semblance of control or the ability to fight back.

Now consider the gangs aren't roaming around with guns and instead of breaking into houses, they're stealthily setting off canisters of sarin gas outside the windows of houses without ornaments.  So there's not going to be any warning; you could patrol the perimeter of your house, but that only increases your exposure.  Your AR-15 won't do you a damn bit of good.  And even if you put up ornaments, your neighbor didn't, and the wind just happens to be light enough in the direction of your house if the canisters are set off next door.

Follow where I'm trying to go here?  I suppose the tl;dr is that the Geneva Convention can basically be summed up by saying if you're going to attack and kill someone, try to do it in the quickest, most painless way possible.  Poison gas is pretty much the opposite of that.

[Benny B]

That being said....

I certainly am NOT defending the use of poison gas (obviously). I just am perplexed about why bombings and other methods used to murder thousands elicit little more than a shoulder shrug but poison gas is the red line that demands military response from other nations.

Because as a global society, we've become desensitized to guns, missiles and bombs over the last century.  Gas attacks are rare enough that they still sell newspapers.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Sounds like the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Anyway, I understand the initial question.  What is going on in Syria has been horrific regardless of the gas attacks, but now the use of gas is a bridge too far?

No wars (or crimes) are moral. Some are just. There are now in place laws of warfare and WMD agreed to by almost all countries on the face of the earth, and these have been continuously violated in this case, despite repeated warnings and violations of further Syrian agreements. At some point, appeasement gives way to enforcement.

[MU82]

I appreciate all those who have responded, including Benny with his long response.

It seems psychological more than anything else - we feel we can hide from a missile but not gas, and the missile death can be instantaneous and relative painless (though not always) vs the horrific death from gas.

Still, it does seem awfully easy for world leaders to totally ignore non-gas mass murders such as those that have been taking place in Syria for years.

Now ... gotta go ask my neighbor to hang those ornaments back up. And not just for me but for the entire cul de sac!!!

[Coleman]

Chemical weapons (such as gas) are against the Geneva Conventions, as well as many other international laws of war.

[MUBurrow]

That being said....

Because as a global society, we've become desensitized to guns, missiles and bombs over the last century.  Gas attacks are rare enough that they still sell newspapers.

And to this end, I think gas is a bright line that we're able to draw in an area (international law) with extremely few bright lines.  Talk to 100 political scientists, and you'll get 100 answers about how smart it is for a country to restrict its own future behavior with international treaties, and 100 answers about whether international law is truly law without a single, consistent enforcement body. But I think gas is one of those things that we can all agree is against whatever laws we have, and its able to serve as a rallying cry to unify enforcement of those laws against bad actors, thereby implicitly serving as evidence as the strength of those otherwise often ineffectual institutions.

[Benny B]

And to this end, I think gas is a bright line that we're able to draw in an area (international law) with extremely few bright lines.  Talk to 100 political scientists, and you'll get 100 answers about how smart it is for a country to restrict its own future behavior with international treaties, and 100 answers about whether international law is truly law without a single, consistent enforcement body. But I think gas is one of those things that we can all agree is against whatever laws we have, and its able to serve as a rallying cry to unify enforcement of those laws against bad actors, thereby implicitly serving as evidence as the strength of those otherwise often ineffectual institutions.

Except Russia.  And North Korea.

[mu03eng]

It's relatively simple. Both gas and nuclear weapons kill at scale and indiscriminately.

If you remove the morality of it, there is legitimate military science behind the use of chemical and nuclear weapons on the battlefield if all you are trying to achieve is to defeat the enemy. However, there are significant non-military impacts of gas and nuclear that are uncontrollable. Both are genies that we never, ever should allow out of the bottle.

[Spotcheck Billy]

So they have WMDs, when are we invading Iraq Syria?

[real chili 83]

Interesting points about nukes in Japan in WWII.  We justified it because:

*Japan wasn't going to surrender to us any time soon
* The cost of us invading would have been horrendous
* The number of Japanese lives lost in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a fraction of the total Japanese and American deaths predicted from an invasion.

Not saying it was right or wrong to drop nukes, but that's the math/logic behind it.

[GGGG]

Interesting points about nukes in Japan in WWII.  We justified it because:

*Japan wasn't going to surrender to us any time soon
* The cost of us invading would have been horrendous
* The number of Japanese lives lost in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a fraction of the total Japanese and American deaths predicted from an invasion.

Not saying it was right or wrong to drop nukes, but that's the math/logic behind it.

I know.  The "winner" oftentimes gets to provide the justification / rationalization.

I am noting saying it was a wrong decision, but just that a lot of what Hards used to describe gas attacks could also be used to describe nuclear attacks as well.

[Buzzed]

Chemical weapons (such as gas) are against the Geneva Conventions, as well as many other international laws of war.

This along with Syria signing several international treaties saying they will not use chemical weapons. With the US as a permanent UN security council member, it's duty is for international peace and security. Larry LeBlanc could provide the nuances.

[GGGG]

This along with Syria signing several international treaties saying they will not use chemical weapons. With the US as a permanent UN security council member, it's duty is for international peace and security. Larry LeBlanc could provide the nuances.

LeBlanc was a fantastic professor.

[tower912]

If there was an easy answer, it already would have been implemented. 

[#UnleashSean]

Interesting points about nukes in Japan in WWII.  We justified it because:

*Japan wasn't going to surrender to us any time soon
* The cost of us invading would have been horrendous
* The number of Japanese lives lost in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a fraction of the total Japanese and American deaths predicted from an invasion.

Not saying it was right or wrong to drop nukes, but that's the math/logic behind it.

Also:

*Our firebombing of Tokyo resulted in much more damage and casualties then both atomic bombs
*It was a shock and awe psychological affect IE: HOLY BALLS THEY HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAN DO THAT????  WAAAAAIT IT WAS ONE BOMB, FROM A SINGLE PLANE? HOW MANY OF THOSE DO THEY HAVE.

The nuke was necessary against an absolute brainwashed country literally thinking they had a God on their side.

[mu03eng]

Interesting points about nukes in Japan in WWII.  We justified it because:

*Japan wasn't going to surrender to us any time soon
* The cost of us invading would have been horrendous
* The number of Japanese lives lost in Nagasaki and Hiroshima were a fraction of the total Japanese and American deaths predicted from an invasion.

Not saying it was right or wrong to drop nukes, but that's the math/logic behind it.

You forgot to include "Signal to the Russians that we weren't to be f'd with"

[Coleman]

The nuke was necessary against an absolute brainwashed country literally thinking they had a God on their side.

Maybe. But were two of them necessary? And was it necessary to drop them in the middle of major urban centers where a maximum number of civilians would be killed?

Just asking questions. These are very complex issues for me and I will admit I do not have ready answers for either side of the debate. Any answer is problematic.

War sucks.

[real chili 83]

Maybe. But were two of them necessary? And was it necessary to drop them in the middle of major urban centers where a maximum number of civilians would be killed?

Just asking questions. These are very complex issues for me and I will admit I do not have ready answers for either side of the debate. Any answer is problematic.

War sucks.

They didn’t quit after the first one was dropped. Second one was three days later 

[rocket surgeon]

i stand to be corrected, but didn't japan's unprovoked bombing of pearl harbor drag us into WW II?  or was it at least the last straw? 

granted, nuclear weapons of today make "little boy" look like a well, a little boy.  but i am a firm believer in "things happen for a reason"  very much like, if we ignore history, we are bound to repeat it,  anyway, i am hoping that we continue to teach/talk about WW II so our kids and kids kids, etc realize the power of nuclear war and the fear of God to ever have to use it because we truly have created a monster.