Breaking News: US Missile Strikes Against Military Targets Inside Syria

[brewer]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/07/world/syri...mp-russia/

[Pat Mustard]

The UN have proven themselves to be absolutely useless. They sit around a desk and write up 'strongly worded condemnations' that do nothing while innocent people are slaughtered in conflicts all over the world. On another note, why does using chemical weapons cross the line but using regular weapons doesn't?

Which is largely as a result of successive American and Russian governments. The only time the UN was "effective" was the short period between 1945 and the end of the Korean war where the USSR effectively ignored it and it was a puppet of US policy.

[vorlon13]

Use of chemical weapons is banned by the Geneva Convention.

I am aware, but there was hardly any outrage from your average person when conventional weapons were being used to massacre children, or when the regime was preventing food aid from entering a city. It's just stupid to start moaning now that chemical weapons were used, which is obviously terrible, but ignore the other shit.

Since WWI, gas has been viewed differently than other weapons.  As a kid in the 60s, I was aware of an 'old man' we frequently saw sitting outside his apartment as we went to the grocery store.  He was disabled, and had been since being gassed in WWI.  The lasting effects of gassing upon the survivors, and the indiscriminately lethal effects of it put it in a special category of armaments.

Additionally, in a theoretical orbit, restrictions on how warfare is conducted, if observed by both sides, will not affect the outcome.  WWII didn't see use of 'gas', but it was deployed.  There were even strong advocates for it's use.  US forces were injured by mustard gas in Italy, but the gas wasn't deployed by Germans or Italian forces, it was leaking from stores the US had sent to Italy, 'just in case'.

Also, President Roosevelt was under enormous pressure to approve the use of gas on at least one Japanese held island in the Pacific (IIRC, Iwo Jima), and it's hard to imagine a more 'perfect' situation for it's use (Japanese forces were dug in, and were definitely prepared to fight to the last man).  Still, Roosevelt, mindful of what happened in WWI would not approve it's use, 'even on Japanese soldiers' and subsequently suffered 20,000 marine fatalities in securing that island.

I would think any future use of gas by the US would irretrievably sully what those marines sacrificed in lieu of a 'cheap and easy' battlefield win with gas.

So gas is different.

[Crunchy]

I am aware, but there was hardly any outrage from your average person when conventional weapons were being used to massacre children, or when the regime was preventing food aid from entering a city. It's just stupid to start moaning now that chemical weapons were used, which is obviously terrible, but ignore the other shit.

Since WWI, gas has been viewed differently than other weapons.  As a kid in the 60s, I was aware of an 'old man' we frequently saw sitting outside his apartment as we went to the grocery store.  He was disabled, and had been since being gassed in WWI.  The lasting effects of gassing upon the survivors, and the indiscriminately lethal effects of it put it in a special category of armaments.

Additionally, in a theoretical orbit, restrictions on how warfare is conducted, if observed by both sides, will not affect the outcome.  WWII didn't see use of 'gas', but it was deployed.  There were even strong advocates for it's use.  US forces were injured by mustard gas in Italy, but the gas wasn't deployed by Germans or Italian forces, it was leaking from stores the US had sent to Italy, 'just in case'.

Also, President Roosevelt was under enormous pressure to approve the use of gas on at least one Japanese held island in the Pacific (IIRC, Iwo Jima), and it's hard to imagine a more 'perfect' situation for it's use (Japanese forces were dug in, and were definitely prepared to fight to the last man).  Still, Roosevelt, mindful of what happened in WWI would not approve it's use, 'even on Japanese soldiers' and subsequently suffered 20,000 marine fatalities in securing that island.

I would think any future use of gas by the US would irretrievably sully what those marines sacrificed in lieu of a 'cheap and easy' battlefield win with gas.

So gas is different.

I do find this a compelling argument that gives me pause.
While it seems almost insane to ignore the deaths of thousands of children from conventional weapons and freak out over the deaths of dozens of children from gas, it may be in humanities overall best interest to act this way. If everyone everywhere understands (including strongmen and theocrats) that any use of gas will be met with a fevered response, it will deter future use of such weapons.

However, another part of also understands that regular explosives are also "chemical" attacks. That's what C4 is. It seems to me that we may be using a primal fear of poison to ignore the real consequences of explosives thus giving murderers a way to kill people that is somehow acceptable. As far as I can tell, poison gas has not proven itself to be more deadly in armed conflict than regular weapons (I could be wrong here).

I would be very interested in hearing more opinions on this subject. Is gas a special case where we should ignore our normal diplomatic responses and attack regardless?

[Anomalocaris]

Since WWI, gas has been viewed differently than other weapons.  As a kid in the 60s, I was aware of an 'old man' we frequently saw sitting outside his apartment as we went to the grocery store.  He was disabled, and had been since being gassed in WWI.  The lasting effects of gassing upon the survivors, and the indiscriminately lethal effects of it put it in a special category of armaments.

Additionally, in a theoretical orbit, restrictions on how warfare is conducted, if observed by both sides, will not affect the outcome.  WWII didn't see use of 'gas', but it was deployed.  There were even strong advocates for it's use.  US forces were injured by mustard gas in Italy, but the gas wasn't deployed by Germans or Italian forces, it was leaking from stores the US had sent to Italy, 'just in case'.

Also, President Roosevelt was under enormous pressure to approve the use of gas on at least one Japanese held island in the Pacific (IIRC, Iwo Jima), and it's hard to imagine a more 'perfect' situation for it's use (Japanese forces were dug in, and were definitely prepared to fight to the last man).  Still, Roosevelt, mindful of what happened in WWI would not approve it's use, 'even on Japanese soldiers' and subsequently suffered 20,000 marine fatalities in securing that island.

I would think any future use of gas by the US would irretrievably sully what those marines sacrificed in lieu of a 'cheap and easy' battlefield win with gas.

So gas is different.

I do find this a compelling argument that gives me pause.
While it seems almost insane to ignore the deaths of thousands of children from conventional weapons and freak out over the deaths of dozens of children from gas, it may be in humanities overall best interest to act this way. If everyone everywhere understands (including strongmen and theocrats) that any use of gas will be met with a fevered response, it will deter future use of such weapons.

However, another part of also understands that regular explosives are also "chemical" attacks. That's what C4 is. It seems to me that we may be using a primal fear of poison to ignore the real consequences of explosives thus giving murderers a way to kill people that is somehow acceptable. As far as I can tell, poison gas has not proven itself to be more deadly in armed conflict than regular weapons (I could be wrong here).

I would be very interested in hearing more opinions on this subject. Is gas a special case where we should ignore our normal diplomatic responses and attack regardless?

The reason why gas was never used during WWII by either side is much less honorable than any willingness to incur casualties to honor an moral obligation.

Both Germany and the western allies were each in the dark regarding how advanced chemical weapon research really was on the other side.  Both the western allies and the Germans were convinced the otherside's research was substantially more advanced their own.  Hence both sides feared unleashing chemical warfare because they feared it is a form of warfare that, once started, would give their enemies a great advantage.

As war progressed the defeats suffered by the German army on the eastern front and the massive loss of equipment also caused the German army to become increasingly vulnerable to chemical warfare. By 1944 when German military situation became critical, using chemical weapons defensively become no longer an option because there were no effective gas masks for horses and the German army by this stage were primarily reliant on horses for most of military transport.

The Japanese did unleash chemical warfare in china, but dreaded unleashing chemical warfare against the western allies because they were certain allied chemical weapon research was far more advanced.  They were mostly right.

If the war had not been ended by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American plans called for a prepatory amphibious invasion of Japanese southern home islands in late 1945 and main invasion of the kento plains and Tokyo in early 1946 under the code names operations Olympic and corona.  

At that time war with Germany was over, State of Japanese checmical warfare development was better known, and there was no longer fear of the enemy having more advanced chemical weapons than the allies.   So it was, as not declassified until the 1990s, that American operational plans for operation corona involve massive use of chemical weapon against Japanese civilian as well as military targets as part of the pre-invasion softening up and as tactical measure during the invasion no subsequent land operation.  Incidentally, in a preview of agent orange, American chemical weapon intended for use against Japan also included agents to destroy food crop in order to worsen the food supply situation in Japan.

So the story of how America sacrificed to void using chemical weapon is pleasant piece of balony

America had every intention of using it, on a massive scale, against civilians, but were robbed of the opportunity by early end to the war.

[Crunchy]

I do find this a compelling argument that gives me pause.
While it seems almost insane to ignore the deaths of thousands of children from conventional weapons and freak out over the deaths of dozens of children from gas, it may be in humanities overall best interest to act this way. If everyone everywhere understands (including strongmen and theocrats) that any use of gas will be met with a fevered response, it will deter future use of such weapons.

However, another part of also understands that regular explosives are also "chemical" attacks. That's what C4 is. It seems to me that we may be using a primal fear of poison to ignore the real consequences of explosives thus giving murderers a way to kill people that is somehow acceptable. As far as I can tell, poison gas has not proven itself to be more deadly in armed conflict than regular weapons (I could be wrong here).

I would be very interested in hearing more opinions on this subject. Is gas a special case where we should ignore our normal diplomatic responses and attack regardless?

The reason why gas was never used during WWII by either side is much less honorable than any willingness to incur casualties to honor an moral obligation.

Both Germany and the western allies were each in the dark regarding how advanced chemical weapon research really was on the other side.  Both the western allies and the Germans were convinced the otherside's research was substantially more advanced their own.  Hence both sides feared unleashing chemical warfare because they feared it is a form of warfare that, once started, would give their enemies a great advantage.

As war progressed the defeats suffered by the German army on the eastern front and the massive loss of equipment also caused the German army to become increasingly vulnerable to chemical warfare.   By 1944 when German military situation became critical, using chemical weapons defensively become no longer an option because there were no effective gas masks for horses and the German army by this stage were primarily reliant on horses for most of military transport.

The Japanese did unleash chemical warfare in china, but dreaded unleashing chemical warfare against the western allies because they were certain allied chemical weapon research was far more advanced.  They were mostly right.

If the war had not been ended by Hiroshima and Nagasaki, American plans called for a prepatory amphibious invasion of Japanese southern home islands in late 1945 and main invasion of the kento plains and Tokyo in early 1946 under the code names operations Olympic and corona.  

At that time war with Germany was over, State of Japanese checmical warfare development was better known, and there was no longer fear of the enemy having more advanced chemical weapons than the allies.   So it was, as not declassified until the 1990s, that American operational plans for operation corona involve massive use of chemical weapon against Japanese civilian as well as military targets as part of the pre-invasion softening up and as tactical measure during the invasion no subsequent land operation.  Incidentally, in a preview of agent orange, American chemical weapon intended for use against Japan also included agents to destroy food crop in order to worsen the food supply situation in Japan.

So the story of how America sacrificed to void using chemical weapon is pleasant piece of balony

America had every intention of using it, on a massive scale, against civilians, but were robbed of the opportunity by early end to the war.

That explains actions in WWI and II but what about every conflict since? You seem to be implying that gas is far more effective at causing casualties than conventional weapons and it was a different factor that caused it not to be used(ie nuclear style deterrence... we won't use it in case they do also) 

Do you think that gas is more effective than conventional weapons at killing people?
My take is that gas may be more capable at killing civilians since soldiers now generally carry gear and are trained on how to deal with gas, civilians are not. This would be a point in favor of treating gas differently than conventional weapons.

[Anomalocaris]

Whether chemical or conventional weapon is more effective in killing civilians depends on the weather condition, population density, terrain, type of target, etc.  it is difficult to generalize regarding which is more effective.    

In dense urban environment against unprepared civilians, chemical weapons are probably on average a few times more effective per weight of ordinance delivered.

However, in terms of orders of magnitude, it is fair to say known chemical weapons are broadly similar to conventional weapons in terms approximate killing power per weight of ordinance.   Certainly both are several orders of magnitude less effective than nuclear weapons.

[Isis]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-39542990

The US military has ordered a navy strike group to move towards the Korean peninsula, amid growing concerns about North Korea's missile programme.

The Carl Vinson Strike Group comprises an aircraft carrier and other warships.

US Pacific Command described the deployment - now heading towards the western Pacific - as a prudent measure to maintain readiness in the region.

President Trump has said the US is prepared to act alone to deal with the nuclear threat from North Korea.

"The number one threat in the region continues to be North Korea, due to its reckless, irresponsible and destabilising programme of missile tests and pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability," US Pacific Command spokesman Dave Benham said.

[A Theist]

A Theist,

Donald Trump's aim during his campaign was better relations with Russia and, as Aegon pointed out, he said that getting involved in Syria is a mistake. I used to sort of like him, although never really agreed with him on many things, but I honestly thought for a short period that he wasn't part of the establishment. As of late, he has revealed himself to be your bog-standard neoconservative and even a lot of his supporters seem to be abandoning him.

This guy can answer that better than anybody here on the forum...

[Crunchy]

A Theist,

Donald Trump's aim during his campaign was better relations with Russia and, as Aegon pointed out, he said that getting involved in Syria is a mistake. I used to sort of like him, although never really agreed with him on many things, but I honestly thought for a short period that he wasn't part of the establishment. As of late, he has revealed himself to be your bog-standard neoconservative and even a lot of his supporters seem to be abandoning him.

This guy can answer that better than anybody here on the forum...

Actually, this guy can answer that better than anybody on the forum