(September 10, 2013 at 4:14 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Lets kill (tens of, hundreds of?) thousands of people with traditional weapons to prevent the use of a few chemical weapons. [...] I don't know how regular bombs somehow are a more moral option.
I'll start by saying that once one has decided to wage war, it is difficult to claim the moral high ground. It is, in my mind, about degree of immorality at that point.
That being said, one (and only one) of the factors that make the use of chemical weapons more immoral is that they are impossible to target precisely. The munition itself can be delivered with the same precision as conventional ones, but the area-of-effect is quite unpredictable, and subject to the whims of prevailing weather conditions for as long as the agent is active in enough concentration to cause harm.
The stuff can drift with the wind, and linger unseen on surfaces after the attack is concluded. Many nerve agents are colorless, odorless, and readily absorbed through the skin or via respiration - and it takes very little of it to cause injury or death.
At one of my posts in the Army, I served as our unit's Nuclear-Biological-Chemical warfare non-commissioned officer, and as such I received far more education about such weapons that any sane person would ever want to have. Honestly, nerve agent scared the living shit out of me.
(Note that that none of the above is making the argument that bombing with conventional weapons is in any way justifiable or somehow moral in any way.)
