We do. Probably every day some police force is gassing its own citizens with things that would be a war crime were they soldiers.
"The war is waged by the ruling group against its own subjects " - Orwell
Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
31–40 of 84 posts
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#32Good to see this posted again. I see a concurring example in aerial bombardment policy of the US and the UK throughout WWII. I even wrote a paper regarding it in college. Both the US and the UK wanted to target the war making capacity of the Germans. The Americans sought to achieve this with strategic precision bombing. The UK sought to do so with mass bombing campaigns targeting industrial workers. The disparity for…
Ooh, nice! "Targeting industrial workers to target the war making capacity" sounds so much nicer than "indiscriminate mass killing of civilians". Don't get me wrong, the Germans had it coming, but let's stop lying to ourselves, shall we?
If we trust our leaders. And our leaders feed us a bunch of bullshit. And then, motivated by that bullshit, we nazi up. Does that make us bad people?
This stuff has been researched deeply. Something like 96% of the population. Nice people. Not idiots. Will swallow absolutely anything that the leader feeds them.
It may be unfixable. Or maybe the only way to fix it is to destroy all forms of mass media.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#33No post body was provided.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am both baffled and relieved that most terrorists seem to lack creativity.
I don't think its creativity limiting the actions, its factors of capability, reliability and gullibility of those carrying out the actions. Batman style "poisoning the water supply" isnt really a viable option due to the complexities of pulling it off successfully.
Something something fluoridation of water supplies . . . precious bodily fluids.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s a “slight” difference between tear gas and chemical weapons. Ones cause temporary (but very strong) inconvenience (of course there maybe some one off complications), others are designed to kill you, as efficiently as possible.
The biggest difference is political: when someone the media doesn't like does it, it's a chemical weapon. When someone the media likes does it, it's nothing. See: https://www.salon.com/2020/06/02/trump-may-have-broken-inter... vs https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/us/protests-portland-seat...
Please don’t confuse stupid political fights in media with real chemical weapons.
It’s insulting to people who were killed/disabled as a result of chemical weapons.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#36The UK planned on using them if Germany ever tried landing on their shores in WWII. Basically just dumping chlorine and mustard gas off the top of cliffs and watching it sink down hill. Anyone on the beaches would've been trapped between that and the ocean.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#37Funny, he never mentioned the chemical weapons that are used all the time, domestically, on protesters. Here's a couple articles I found: https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/tear-gas-is-a-chemical-weapon... https://www.newsweek.com/richmond-chemical-weapons-protests-... My two cents: In general, shouldn't our elected "leaders" arrange to meet with protesters, people who are obviously very frustrated, and spend the time to…
There’s a difference between tear gas and sarin.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#38We do. Probably every day some police force is gassing its own citizens with things that would be a war crime were they soldiers.
Quoting the essay:
> Now, I want to leave aside, for the purpose of this essay, the use of lethal chemical agents in genocide, the use of non-lethal chemical agents entirely, as well as the use of things like defoliants that were not intended to cause casualties (even if they did). Those things are all important, but if we get into talking about them, we will never get anywhere. Instead, we’re focusing on the battlefield use of lethal chemical agents against either opposing combatants or civilian populations.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am both baffled and relieved that most terrorists seem to lack creativity.
I don't think its creativity limiting the actions, its factors of capability, reliability and gullibility of those carrying out the actions. Batman style "poisoning the water supply" isnt really a viable option due to the complexities of pulling it off successfully.
Anyone who is not directly involved in the various things like water supply doesn’t realize all the safety measures and such that in place to prevent accidental contamination- which also help detect and prevent intentional damage.
The total number of terrorists is small, and their ability is limited. But that may not always be the case.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#40We do. Probably every day some police force is gassing its own citizens with things that would be a war crime were they soldiers.
There’s a “slight” difference between tear gas and chemical weapons. Ones cause temporary (but very strong) inconvenience (of course there maybe some one off complications), others are designed to kill you, as efficiently as possible.
As far as I’m aware the verdict is still out on the long term effects so I’m not sure “temporary” is accurate.
The fact that it seemed to be impacting women’s menstrual cycles in my city makes me concerned about long term issues related to exposure (fertility among them): https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/01/us/period-tear-gas-study-...
Clearly this needs some study.
It’s certainly true that the people exposed to this gas are not currently dead, I’ll give you that.