- Joined
- Sep 3, 2011
- Messages
- 34,817
- Reaction score
- 18,576
- Location
- Look to your right... I'm that guy.
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Why are chemical weapons worse than conventional weapons?
I know, I know, on the surface it seems like a ridiculous question. I heard it asked on a radio talk show a few days ago. It was asked in an interesting way.
If you had to articulate and answer, how would you explain why chemical weapons are worse than conventional weapons.
FWIW: The answer given was something along the lines of, "Well, because everybody agrees they are." I don't believe that even begins to address the question.
Why are chemical weapons worse than conventional weapons?
I know, I know, on the surface it seems like a ridiculous question. I heard it asked on a radio talk show a few days ago. It was asked in an interesting way.
If you had to articulate and answer, how would you explain why chemical weapons are worse than conventional weapons.
FWIW: The answer given was something along the lines of, "Well, because everybody agrees they are." I don't believe that even begins to address the question.
Chemical weapons target non-combatants, ie people who are not fighting you. This is unethical and highly illegal just about everywhere in the world.Why are chemical weapons worse than conventional weapons?
I know, I know, on the surface it seems like a ridiculous question. I heard it asked on a radio talk show a few days ago. It was asked in an interesting way.
If you had to articulate and answer, how would you explain why chemical weapons are worse than conventional weapons.
FWIW: The answer given was something along the lines of, "Well, because everybody agrees they are." I don't believe that even begins to address the question.
Why are chemical weapons worse than conventional weapons?
I know, I know, on the surface it seems like a ridiculous question. I heard it asked on a radio talk show a few days ago. It was asked in an interesting way.
If you had to articulate and answer, how would you explain why chemical weapons are worse than conventional weapons.
FWIW: The answer given was something along the lines of, "Well, because everybody agrees they are." I don't believe that even begins to address the question.
Chemical weapons target non-combatants, ie people who are not fighting you. This is unethical and highly illegal just about everywhere in the world.
I would say conventional weapons to chemical weapons is the equivalent of being killed with a shot behind the ear to being tortured to death.
The M4 and M16 rifle are designed to injure but not necessarily kill. The bullet is intended to rip apart muscle and organs while leaving the target alive. Is that not torture?I think a lot of why chemical/ biological weapons are considered worse comes from how they affect the human body.
A conventional weapon generally relies upon immediate and blunt trauma. CBR weapons often leave the victims with long standing after effects, many of which constitute long-term pain and suffering.
That's what I just said.Any weapon, with the possible exception of a sword, can target non-combatants.
Chemical weapons are worse because of how they target people, both the combatants and non-combatants.
I think a lot of why chemical/ biological weapons are considered worse comes from how they affect the human body.
A conventional weapon generally relies upon immediate and blunt trauma. CBR weapons often leave the victims with long standing after effects, many of which constitute long-term pain and suffering.
Why are chemical weapons worse than conventional weapons?
I know, I know, on the surface it seems like a ridiculous question. I heard it asked on a radio talk show a few days ago. It was asked in an interesting way.
If you had to articulate and answer, how would you explain why chemical weapons are worse than conventional weapons.
FWIW: The answer given was something along the lines of, "Well, because everybody agrees they are." I don't believe that even begins to address the question.
Kind of an off question here but are you bothered when you see someone carrying a gun on their belt openly?Yes - everything above.
They're indiscriminate.
Easy to produce and conceal.
The effects are not immediate. Sure, impact weapons can be considered slow, too, but they're not MEANT to be. . . and some are regulated/not used because they're unreliable and inefficient for their intended purpose. . . in essence: chem weapons are torture tactics, and for the same reason, we don't use certain projectile weapons, either.
They're also toxic to the environment - seems like an unimportant thing, but the chemicals can leech into the water and have had disastrous effects on ecology and food crops after the war is long over.
I would say conventional weapons to chemical weapons is the equivalent of being killed with a shot behind the ear to being tortured to death.
From what I've read, you die a slow agonizing death by asphyxiation with chemical weapons. A quick death with a shot behind the ear would be preferred, IMO. Not that either choice would be eagerly awaited by most people! :thumbdown:
Greetings, CJ. :2wave:
That's what I just said.
Conventional weapons can be aimed, WMDs cannot be aimed.
The M4 and M16 rifle are designed to injure but not necessarily kill. The bullet is intended to rip apart muscle and organs while leaving the target alive. Is that not torture?
A chemical weapon's greatest power is the fear it brings to those exposed and those who may have been exposed.
From what I've read, you die a slow agonizing death by asphyxiation with chemical weapons. A quick death with a shot behind the ear would be preferred, IMO. Not that either choice would be eagerly awaited by most people! :thumbdown:
Greetings, CJ. :2wave:
Essentially, that is the case. Growing up in a relatively conservative household, I always believed that the use of the atomic bombs during WWII was justified. It wasn't until I went through CBR training with the military that I changed my mind about that whole deal.
Although, I'd argue that the actually suffering incurred by the recipients of what CBR weapons have been used is quite great.
Use of the atomic bomb was entirely justified. Without it an invasion would have been defeated.
What good could possibly have come from invading Japan at that point during the war? As far as I'm concerned, by the time we had dropped the bombs victory was already ours. . . why go through the extra trouble of invading a whole country?
We could've easily saved hundreds of thousands of innocent lives by neither dropping the bombs nor invading.
The M4 and M16 rifle are designed to injure but not necessarily kill. The bullet is intended to rip apart muscle and organs while leaving the target alive. Is that not torture?
The difference is who is targeted, not if they suffer.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?