Quote:
Originally Posted by Orruar
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
1) Your description of sarin gas death isn't consistent with most of what I've read on the subject. Most die within a minute or two from asphyxiation since nerve gasses tend to stop respiration. The real lucky ones have their hearts stopped and die very quickly. Not much worse than a heart attack. Also, you seem to be comparing the worst possible death from sarin to the best possible death from shrapnel. Many injuries from shrapnel involve hours of agony before finally being released from the pain via death. I'm not sure what the average sarin death vs average shrapnel death
2) Your description of how we use smart missiles to take out a room full of terrorists while leaving all the children in the next hours over unscathed is so ludicrously naive that it's difficult to take you seriously. I'm picturing some bomber pilot saying "hey guys, the house is actually a little smaller than we thought, I better come back and get some smaller bombs." Read some news, watch some Youtube videos from people reporting directly from places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. Then come back here and try to say what you just said with a straight face. Not only do we completely fail to hit the proper targets much of the time (wedding parties bombed with dozens of women/children dead), but even when we do hit a valid target, often many civilians are caught up in the blast.
|
Sarin gas rarely gets you from asphyxiation before you experience the nerve pain/spasms. And you will definitely piss yourself, shit yourself, and vomit. I guess arguing which is the worst way to die is kind of a moot point, since they are all horrible, but there's a special sort of fucked upness that comes from dying from nerve gas that you just don't get from a bomb concussion (which is how people usually die from our missile's/bombs, not shrapnel).
I am not so naive to think all missile strikes cause zero collateral damage, but as daldolma states below, it's intent to reduce harm that's the difference. And that IS a difference. That missile through the window MAY take out the floor in the building and crush a bunch of children below - unfortunately, that's war, and its fucked up. The point is that we're advancing our technology to try to prevent that from happening. Chemical weapons do the opposite.
Also, your entire argument is based off the fact that chemical weapons are a cheap alternative to...? what? nuclear weapons? Sure. But they are far from cheap. The facilities required to create sarin gas in a safe environment are still expensive. I guess that could be taken as 'the poor man's' solution. But when your poor man lives in a 25,000 sq ft palace and rests his feet on the backs of religious slaves, its hardly an accurate analogy. Especially considering one of the poorest countries in the world, north korea, is nuclear capable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daldolma
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
overstating your point. and you're conflating chemical weapons with terrorism.
the difference is that chemical weapons are inherently uncontrollable and unusually cruel. you can control the damage a bomb does by using it responsibly and ethically. obviously bombs are often misused, and that becomes a new debate. but they are controllable. you can't control a chemical weapon. it's untargeted and harms civilians as readily as combatants. a shift in wind can mean thousands of extra civilian deaths. the other side of the coin is cruelty. it may seem unnecessary to differentiate death from death, but it's something human civilization has done for millennia now. dying by metal or fire is typical of war. dying by unthinkably horrific illness is not, and most nations agreed that they didn't want to see that expansion of the norms of war.
terrorism is another matter entirely. terrorism, as it's come to be understood, is decried because it intentionally targets civilians, often in as large numbers as possible. that is flatly unacceptable from a moral standpoint. there is a significant difference between collateral damage and intentionally targeting civilians. your 9/11 comparison is disingenuous. the US has far greater capabilities. american civilian casualties are limited by the capabilities of al qaeda, et al. civilian casualties in iraq/afghanistan are limited only by american restraint. consider an alternate reality where terrorism and, more generally, intentionally targeting civilians is not internationally unacceptable. which side of this conflict would benefit more? the moral and international implications of civilian casualties are the only reasons the US didn't decisively end this conflict a decade ago.
|
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nirgon
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Of all chemical weapons expert opinions in here, I like the one from gotrocks. His posts are usually great too.
|
Thought this thread needed some dramatic flair
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I'd like to point out that I think we have no business in syria. I don't want another iraq/afghanistan war, and I didn't want one at that time either. I would not be opposed to dropping a few bombs if other countries decided they wanted to put their own boots on the ground, however.
The United States is in a somewhat unique position of having a bloated military budget and lots of expensive toys no one else has. If we can throw b-2 bombers and smart bombs to knock out radar installation/other high value targets that saves other courageous men and womens lives (ie, foreign pilots) i think we should do it. Just have an exit strategy and stick to it (get out in 30 days, something like that).