Would You Use Chemical Weapons?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by AAAintheBeltway, Sep 10, 2013.

  1. It's awfully easy to judge others when we're not in their shoes. Use chemical weapons? Beyond the pale. Never. The moralists can't make it strong enough.

    But what if. What if this country faced an existential crisis? Let's say a series of earthquakes devastated the west coast at the exact same time a killer hurricane hit the east coast. Power grids, roads, bridges, etc out of commission for weeks or months. Let's say foreign hackers chose this moment of vulnerability to wreak havoc on our communications systems, and some unknown foreign power disabled most of our surveillance and communications satellites.

    There we are, more of less helpless. Suddenly we hear scattered reports of an invasion along our southern border. Not just the usual drug smugglers and illegals, but an organized force, most likely drug cartels aided and abetted by mexican army units. There are rumors of a coup in mexico and control of their military is uncertain. The invaders are well armed with armor, choppers and tens of thousands of troops. They are destroying everything in their path, burning cities, killing residents.

    Our military's ability to respond is limited. Most of our domestic Army bases were knocked out by the disasters or lack the ability to move to meet the invasion. Air Force units are similarly degraded.

    The National Security Council meets. The President demands options, but they have none. Jack Bauer has left the building. Conventional forces, in their current degraded situation, are indadequate to deal with the scale of the invasion. The President is told we could easily lose two thirds of the area west of the Mississippi before a counterattack can be put together, with massive loss of life and property.

    He turns to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and implores him for a solution. The General takes a deep breath and begins, " Mr. President, we have two options. We can hit them with tactical nukes, but we cannot control the fallout, which will kill tens of thousands of our own people, plus the areas we hit will be unihabitable for centuries. " He pauses, and the President stares at him and says,"You said there were two option?"

    "We can stop them cold with a chemical attack."
  2. achilles28


    Sure. Why not?

    Major powers want a monopoly on WMD's. That's why they vilify them. It's do as I say, not as I do. For strategic advantage.
  3. fhl


    Using a conventional bomb is the kind and compassionate way to kill someone.

    Well, i guess that's what they think.
  4. jem


    Hollow Points are banned by some international conventions and apparently Nato forces do not use them... yet they are commonly purchased by police and those buying ammo for home defense.

    I think you have to determine what is the point of the war you are in an what is your objective?
    Next you have to determine what is the point of international law
    Then you have to determine if who and what power international law has over you the decision maker.

    The thing about international law is that the winners and the powerful are generally the ones who bring it up. So if you are the U.S. president... who is going to stop you short of going to war with you?
  5. Yes, and not just in a scenario like you described. I see it this way: We as a society should never be risking our servicemen or assets unless we absolutely have to. That means either 1) we were attacked, 2) we have been threatened and have evidence that an attack is imminent, or 3) one of our allies were attacked. I personally don't like perma-alliances for a variety of reasons, but the thing is there are other nations that depend on us for defense because of us. Like Japan for example. We would have to defend them because by treaty we don't allow them to build an adequate military. Once one of these situations occur, in my opinion, there is no holding back. We do what we have to in order to win. If that means wmds, then we use them. That's also why i laugh at international law, because it seems like little more than an attempt to legally and physically protect those who declare war but disables those who actually fight it. In fact the first thing i would do as CiC during a war is try to kill my oppositions leadership. you don't try to take pawns when you play chess, right? You aim for the king. Also, i would NEVER even consider sending troops to help rebuild 10 story mud huts in haiti or babysit hajis in their own countries. Our troops sign up to defend this nation which means killing people and blowing shit up when the time comes and we need to.

    Another consideration to think about is these globalist jokers crying over assads alleged use of chem weapons, they are massively full of shit. Let me tell you this, if one of their respective nations were in a civil war and the rebels were breathing down the necks of the elites, they WOULD use everything they have to stay alive and in power. Imagine a revolt in russia, maybe one where the military fractured and putin found himself on the short end of the stick, i'm convinced he would drop fucking nukes on his 'own people'.. and i don't even doubt that could happen right here at home. They are all liars.

    I try not to think in terms of morality (in the context of war) because it isn't universally set in stone and cause from what i can tell, when it comes down to it, morality goes right out the window. Might is right guys, it's the way the world works and always has. democratic forms of govt help to prevent an individual or select group from assuming all the might, somewhat keeping things balanced out, but whoever has the most might will win in the end, they have all the staying power. You didn't learn about civilizations that weren't superior militarily in history classes, did you? No, cause they got conquered by a superior force and their history was assimilated into the conquering nation. History's winners always had a better way to wage war. Sparta had discipline, Genghis Khan had a cavalry, Rome had roads, and we have hydrogen warhead tipped ballistic missiles. in circumstances where they are the best option, we should use them.
  6. There is no doubt a chemical attack could be effective.

    But this is not what you are asking.

    The answer you seek from others, is, Would it be right or wrong to use such force?

    I'm afraid you won't find a reliable answer to that question here.

    So, I suppose a better question is for you to ask yourselves, Would you blame President Obama if he made the decision to drop chemicals on the bandits who were raiding our back door?

    p.s. I wouldn't be too worried about Mexicans taking over the country by use of armed forces- they are much more sophisticated than that.
  7. Sparta, Genghis Khan, Rome > Beat down, dead and bloody.

    It seems that nations who have history of war will always result in creating more powerful successors.

    Who will be ours?

    I wouldn't worry about a China too much. Perhaps the reason for their long-lived power is from their history of non-war.
  8. People have the right to kill their enemy using whatever force they deem necessary. Something we forgot after WW II, and haven't won a war since. News flash. There's no nice way to kill people.
    So what's the difference between Assad gasing a thousand people, or a bunch of bandits hacking people to pieces with machetes in Africa? Efficiency, that's what. From a moral standpoint, there is no difference.
  9. What would you do if someone was trying to rob your inheritance? That's essentially what is happening here. His father, Hafez, left him the country and Bashar is doing what he needs to do to prevent it from falling into other people's hands.

    Regardless of whether Bashar Assad authorized chemical weapons or not, all this has happened before. His father was well known to be militantly secularist in the Arab world.

    In the now infamous Hama massacre which happened in the early 80's, the Muslim Brotherhood seized the city of Hama, and his father simply annihilated the entire city by heavy artillery bombardment over one month. Almost every single insurgent was hunted down and killed. The Muslim brotherhood and the associated Islamist groups disappeared overnight in Syria. They have not been seen in Syria for 20 years.

    Now, buoyed by their successes in Egypt and Libya, the Muslim brotherhood came back. Same game, different Assad.

    Bashar is a bit of a nerd actually. Trained and worked in London as an eye doctor, never groomed to take over Syria until his elder brother died in a car accident and got called back. He probably just thinks he is defending his father's legacy.

    The question is why Obama seems intent on supporting the Islamists everywhere they appear. In Libya, he told gadaffi you can't use the air force or we will bomb you. In syria, air power has been used extensively for 2 years and after 100k people dead in a civil war, Obama says, okay you can't do this chemical stuff now. the decision making process of Obama's brain is very strange indeed.
  10. The Chinese love their wars too. They have one of the longest histories on warfare on the planet and wrote THE book on war for god's sake.

    Just that they are not concerned with the affairs of others and prefer to fight among themselves. :D
    #10     Sep 11, 2013