'chemical' Attack In Syria...

[sandyRoe]

I don't want to seem to be making light of the dreadful attack in the suburbs of Damascus, which seems to have killed hundreds, but why are some method acceptable(high explosives, for example) while gas or chemicals is not?

[AB Editor]

Guns are direct and can be discriminating.

Chemical warfare - not so much.

Maybe that's too simple?

[sandyRoe]

Bombs or drones, in another arena of conflict, don't seem to discriminate.

[EDDIE51]

Gas is against the Geneva convention.

[ummmm]

A more slow and painful death. Guns/bombs are more likely to kill instantly.

[sandyRoe]

I can't see how long it takes a target to die being much of a concern to the military. That it's banned by the Geneva Convention is probably the reason why it's attracting such flak.

[ichkeria]

Good question. I think it partly relates to the perception that they target civilians (and combatants) in a particularly nasty and widespread fashion. However many of the 'conventional' weapons attacks have been just as indiscriminate and deadly. And of course other countries have used other types of devices such as thermobaric and cluster bombs in wars

[AB Editor]

"Bombs or drones, in another arena of conflict, don't seem to discriminate."

They attempt to I think. I have read about this before, but my mind draws a blank now!

[ToraToraTora]

you are correct, the military may not be concerned about how quickly the victims die but the whole point of your question is about acceptability. Bio/chem weapons are generally seen as nasty slow painful deaths. So, as far as you can have "rules" in war, they are more frowned upon that convetional bullets and explosives.

[ichkeria]

Once the rule has been put in place and agreed by all then it is seen as objectionable - in fact a war crime - to break it. It then becomes a question of use it if you think you can get away with it

[weecalf]

Good question it seems like its not that you kill it how you kill All killings are wrong

[Zeuhl]

Gas was banned by international convention after WW1 when Chlorine Gas was used extensively.

Why it was considered worse than being blown to pieces by HE is hard to imagine but clearly for the men affected it was especially horrible.

Many of them survived (suffering ill health for the rest of their lives) and no doubt added their voices to the consensus