Opposition to chemical and biological weapons is sexist. We readily accept weapons that have male characteristics: weapons like bombs and bullets that explode like a male orgasm or penetrate the body in phallic projectiles. Poison is the traditional weapon of the female. Yet we abhor female chemical and biological weapons that kill or injure through poisoning. We need to end this double standard and remove the glass ceiling on female weaponry. Indeed, I would recommend taking affirmative action to end this discrimination. We should reserve at least half our arsenal for chemical and biological weapons. Anything less would be a grave social injustice.
On a more serious note, what is it about chemical weapons that makes them "worse" than conventional weapons? Were we being evil when we used mustard gas in WWI? It doesn't seem all that humane to incinerate a city with regular explosives, so why the distinction? I can understand why biological weapons may be worse, given indiscriminate spread after deployment, and nuclear weapons, given lasting contamination, radiation sickness, cancer, global climate effects, etc.
Chemical as well as Nuclear weapons are classified as "Weapons of Mass Destruction", and pretty much every nation has declared that they will only use them in retaliation of an attack in kind. If you can't tell the difference between those and conventional weapons, there is really no use to even have this conversation.
Well I doubt I can't tell the difference. If that's your attitude I'm not sure why you replied except with the intent of being rude, since you certainly didn't give me a good reason for them being morally different. You cited that they were classified as WMDs by most nations, which is an appeal to authority rather than an argument. I'm not going to accept something just because somebody in power defined it as such, nor should anybody. That is fallacy. The definition of WMD is a matter of debate. As I understand it, a weapon of mass destruction should be able to kill large numbers of people easily, or to be used on a strategic level rather than a tactical level. Strategic being the rather callous way of saying killing the civilians and infrastructure that supports the military in total war. This would most clearly apply to biological weapons, which after deployment the organism can proliferate until it is defeated or burns out. Similarly a nuclear weapon can cause immense infrastructure damage, lasting contamination, and death on a more strategic level than can reasonably be achieved with regular explosives. When we come to chemical weapons, what's the moral difference between incinerating your enemy and asphyxiating them? Does it depend upon whether it is a persistent agent or not?
How nice, a double negative. Please let me know when you actually know what you want to say. Oh trust me, that was not me being rude. That was actually an example of me being both informative, and sarcastic. If I was being rude, you would definitely know it. And it is not just "most nations", it is by legally binding International Treaties, dating back almost a century. I invite you to read up on the Hague and Geneva Conventions and Treaties, and you will see what I mean. And you refuse to accept anything simply because somebody else tells you to do it. So fine, please do not exit the burning building. And your understanding is wrong. And once again, your understanding is wrong. And once again, you are talking about two classifications of weapons that are illegal under multiple international treaties and conventions, as well as the "Laws of Land Warfare". Please return when you can talk from a position of knowledge, instead of simply rattling off from the top of your head all sorts of things that do not apply or go together. I suggest you start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_war http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Geneva_Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Petersburg_Declaration_(1868) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_(1899) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Protocol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention,_Relative_to_the_treatment_of_prisoners_of_war_(1929) Those are some of the more important ones, but there are dozens more you can read. So please return when you actually understand the issue.
And again my question isn't related to what the law is, it's more about the reasoning behind giving chemical weapons a special distinction. Seems like if you really understand this issue so well you would be able to explain it without too much effort. The links you posted largely talk about the history behind the principles of not killing civilians and causing unnecessary destruction. The one about the Geneva Protocol at least specifically deals with chemical weapons, but it's more about history than the reasoning behind it. That's interesting to know, but doesn't really address my question.
