Do we apply our red line on chemical weapons to ourselves?

[Craig234]

We've been strong opponents of others using chemical weapons.

We've had some consistency on this, not using things like Sarin weapons in many decades.

We have, however, used things like Agent Orange - causing widespread horrific deformed births in Vietnam - and irradiated Unranium ammunition more recently.

We've had 'red lines' for others - justifying an invasion of Iraq primarily on a claim they possessed WMD, our 'red line' for Syria.

Anyway, I'm curious about this poll. Do we apply the same rules for these weapons to our own country?

 

[smackababy]

We've been strong opponents of others using chemical weapons.

We've had some consistency on this, not using things like Sarin weapons in many decades.

We have, however, used things like Agent Orange - causing widespread horrific deformed births in Vietnam - and irradiated Unranium ammunition more recently.

Anyway, I'm curious about this poll:

Considering Agent Orange was to kill the jungle, not the Vietcong, I don't think that counts. Plus, I don't think the actual cancerous properties of Agent Orange were known at the time of use. Depleted Uranium ammunition has almost no radiation poisoning unless it is ingested or internalized from shrapnel. Now, considering we use 30mm shells as our primary DU weapon of choice, if you're hit with one, radiation poisoning is probably the last thing you should be worrying about.

As far as I know, the US has not used chemical weapons. China and North Korea accuse us of using them in the Korean War, but Russia backs us up in denying it. We have done lots of research into them, but never used.


EDIT: I voted for "under extreme circumstances" because, let's face it, if we are facing the decision to either accept enemy occupation or break some Geneva convention, well sorry Geneva, but we will deal with the aftermath after we win. Now, consideration has to be taken whether or not the weapons would have any after effects. Obviously, we wouldn't want to pollute American soil for hundreds of generations after just to win.

 

[Lithium381]

Only to citizens. If you're a terrorist or enemy non-combatant or other such label then maybe not?

Wait until the revolution happens and we'll find out? Before or after they repeal the 2nd amendment . .

 

[CrackRabbit]

If you want to have an honest discussion about chemical weapons you shouldn't be including Agent Orange or DU rounds.
Neither are truly chemical weapons, though they both have or may have long term consequences from their use they don't fall into the same realm as something like Sarin, VX, or even Mustard or Chlorine Gas.

 

[cwjerome]

If you want to have an honest discussion about chemical weapons you shouldn't be including Agent Orange or DU rounds.
Neither are truly chemical weapons, though they both have or may have long term consequences from their use they don't fall into the same realm as something like Sarin, VX, or even Mustard or Chlorine Gas.

This.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

We don't use chemical weapons. It's like asking if we use catapults. Bit behind the times.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If DU is a chemical weapon, then so is a land mine.

 

[Craig234]

If you want to have an honest discussion about chemical weapons you shouldn't be including Agent Orange or DU rounds.
Neither are truly chemical weapons, though they both have or may have long term consequences from their use they don't fall into the same realm as something like Sarin, VX, or even Mustard or Chlorine Gas.

I think I was clear about that, saying that the US has long abandoned the use of more direct 'chemical weapons' while noting other weapons we have used with somewhat similar issues. If I show you the massive deformities in Vietnam from our weapons, they clearly rasie a lot of the same issues as chsemical weapons; not all. An 'honest discussion' will include both weapons like Sarin-based weapons (and bioligical weapons), as well as other weapons that aren't simply 'gunpowder' based, such as Agent Orange and DU rounds.

There's nothing that's not an honest conversation there - they aren't being equated, they are just both up for discussion; the poll specifically includes an option to treat them apart.

You are welcome to say anything you like about each.

Some will see the similarities more storngly, others will not, the point is, in discussing chemical weapons, it's accurate to note that while the US has not used weapons like Sarin in combat (since I think at least WWI, when I think both sides did, I'm not sure about the US use), it's fair to note some of the more controversial weapons we have used, for discussion if people want. If you don't, state that's your position (preferably with your reason) and ignore those weapons.

The main point is not those other weapons, it's the question about the chemical weapons - while the US has not used them, we also do not face any 'existential threat' since the cold war and nuclear weapons, which are not relevant to this issue of chemical weapons. We've told other countries that we demand their governements be willing to be defeated, even to the point of putting the leaders' lives at risk, while restraining themselves from using weapons they might feel could save their government from defeat - but will we apply the same thing to our own government, if we did face such an existential threat? Would we allow a foreign enemy to military defeat our country and remove if not kill our leaders, while restraining ourselves from the use of chemical weapons if they turn the tide of war?

It's something we demand - but will we do the same?

It seems to me that most Americans might well say that in that situation, we'd be willing to have them used to win the war - but that we don't recognize others' right to do so.

There's not much to do with that if true - it's nice to be the military leader and not have to face the issue or be consistent - but I'm just verifying if that's how people feel.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Agent Orange shouldn't be part of this conversation as a "chemical weapon" (IMHO) -- was 40 years ago and we unwittingly exposed our own troops to it as much as the VC.

DU shouldn't be ingested. But neither should lead shrapnel or the dust from building rubble (asbestos, paint, metals, etc.). "Not healthy to breathe" is not the same as "nerve gas."

So, the US doesn't use them the way you're thinking of, and hasn't for 50+ years.

Edit: I'd say the only situations where we'd consider using them is the same ones where nukes would be on the table -- such as all-out world war against China.

 

[Murloc]

DU is not a chemical weapon but it is a contaminant and should not be used.

Chemical weapons are deadly gases.
I don't think anyone should use them, but it's not like they're almost permanent contaminants like radioactive stuff or anything. It's like landmines, it's better if everyone stops using them and stick to nuclear bombs.

 

[Craig234]

Agent Orange shouldn't be part of this conversation as a "chemical weapon" (IMHO) -- was 40 years ago and we unwittingly exposed our own troops to it as much as the VC.

DU shouldn't be ingested. But neither should lead shrapnel or the dust from building rubble (asbestos, paint, metals, etc.). "Not healthy to breathe" is not the same as "nerve gas."

So, the US doesn't use them the way you're thinking of, and hasn't for 50+ years.

Edit: I'd say the only situations where we'd consider using them is the same ones where nukes would be on the table -- such as all-out world war against China.

Then I repeat: ignore then, and discuss the thread topic, about whether we apply the same absolute prohibition for use of chemical weapons to ourselves as to others.

I'm asking less whether you think 'we'd consider using them' than whether you SUPPORT our using them in the same existential threat we tell others not to use them.

 

[Craig234]

DU is not a chemical weapon but it is a contaminant and should not be used.

Chemical weapons are deadly gases.
I don't think anyone should use them, but it's not like they're almost permanent contaminants like radioactive stuff or anything.

Nukes are beyond the topic here, but one of the purposes this discussion can serve is to try to separate where our positions - like 'you can't use chemical weapons under any circiumstances' - are based more on what is in our interests - 'they'd help you and we don't want that, and we don't need to use them' - versus what's 'moral'. Morality of convenience.

That's somewhat analogous to the question on terrorism - most people who feel they have no other choice support it; most people who don't need to use it but who it's more likely to be used against oppose it on 'moral gorunds'. Those 'moral grounds' don't always include discussing any OTHER moral issues, such as the grievances of the terrorists.

One of the ways we can better separate convenicence and morality is, 'will we follow it too?'

 

[Craig234]

By the way - I haven't formed a clear position on the question I'm asking others' views on.

Naturally I don't like the use of such weapons - but if I were in the shoes of people facing revolution if these weapons could change the way, would I be restrained?

I just suspect that just as I question whether I'd stick to that rule, I'm not sure many Americans have really thought through whether they would either.

And it raises a question - is it reaslistic or reasonable to ask others not to, if we would in their shoes?

And if not - what else can be done about them?

 

[DaveSimmons]

That's true. As Americans we have fighter-bombers, armored helicopters, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons, so you could say we have the luxury of not "needing" chemical weapons to protect ourselves or achieve our aims.

The other side is the Palestine viewpoint that blowing up buses is the only effective way for them to strike back at Israel, or that the Syrian rebels (possibly) used gas to make up for the difference in conventional arms between them and the Syrian military.

I guess I'll say we can and will continue to apply the "red line" to ourselves, but I'll agree that that's partly because we can afford to. Just like we can afford to be "carbon neutral" more easily than some developing nation that wants to use "dirty coal" and petroleum to lift themselves out of poverty.

 

[cwjerome]

After some editing of posts and clarification by the OP, I'll answer yes, we do apply the same rules for these weapons to our own country. There are no international laws against DU or defoliants. We do not oppose their use by other nations.

 

[Jaskalas]

An interesting question.

If there was a mass mobilization of infantry against us, I'd sure as hell demand the use of WMDs to eliminate them with maximum efficiency and minimal risk to ourselves.

I suppose what you'd like to ask is - if Chemicals were used in Syria then how would it be any different? My answer would be - who would they have been used against?

Then my answer becomes tangled in a very serious problem. Military mixed in with civilian populations. Terrorists / militia / rebels acting as a fighting force in urban areas. Any sort of WMD would impact civilians. Do I give fighters a benefit for encamping themselves among non fighters?

I could specify certain rules on how / when not to use WMDs, to minimize the civilian risk. I might even take the front line between armies and evacuate my side - and then feel more comfortable with unleashing complete death and destruction if an opponent advances towards me - knowing full well that I did my best to clear the area they now occupy.

The fact is, civilians ARE casualties of war. They do / will get killed along the way. War has its costs. Our goal would be to minimize those costs, but not at the expense of ourselves. It's a sort of moral dilemma that should be wrestled with til the end of time.

-- Other (I support the use of WMDs against infantry mobilizations in war)

 

[Scotteq]

and irradiated Unranium ammunition more recently.

You clearly mean "Depleted Uranium"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

 

[Craig234]

You clearly mean "Depleted Uranium"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depleted_uranium

Yes, I sort of knew I was having a 'brain fart' on the term and ignored it at the time.

Thanks for correcting.

 

[Craig234]

Dave, thanks for the reply.

Jaskalas, you too - one thing, the analogous situation is to imagine an armed revolt by a large group of civilians (the aort I say is impossible, and to make it interesting you strongly disagree with them, so let's say there's a rise of neo-Nazis or something) that threatens to overthrow our country's government and replace it with dictatorship.

Something that's analogous from the point of view of other countries facing 'citizen rebellions' tryingto overthrow the government and kill them.

So, would you let the US government be overthrown if chemical weapons could win the war?

 

[SMOGZINN]

I think we first need to carefully define what a "chemical weapon" is. Is tear gas a chemical weapon? It is certainly a chemical, and it is being used as a weapon.

Actually, I don't know this myself, does our red line include 'non-lethal' chemical weapons of the type that our own police use liberally?

What is the real difference between chemical weapons and a bomb? Why is it okay to drop a fuel-air explosive on someone that kills them by igniting the very air they breath, but not a chemical that kills them some other way? Is it just because of the potential to kill LOTS of people with very little effort that makes them scary? Then why not make our line in the sand the size of the weapon, and not the makeup of it? Maybe because we are really fond of our MOABs, and are fairly secure in our superiority in this area so that we don't have to fear other countries using it against us?

I don't know. What I do know is that when their back is against the wall, no country is going to care about a red line. They are going to use what they must to survive.

 

[Fern]

The U.S. chemical weapons program began during World War I. Chemical weapons were only used during that war. Chemical weapons production ended in 1969. The United States renounced chemical weapons in 1997 and destruction of stockpiled weapons is still ongoing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._chemical_weapons_topics

I see no problem or issue here.

Fern

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's true. As Americans we have fighter-bombers, armored helicopters, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons, so you could say we have the luxury of not "needing" chemical weapons to protect ourselves or achieve our aims.

The other side is the Palestine viewpoint that blowing up buses is the only effective way for them to strike back at Israel, or that the Syrian rebels (possibly) used gas to make up for the difference in conventional arms between them and the Syrian military.

I guess I'll say we can and will continue to apply the "red line" to ourselves, but I'll agree that that's partly because we can afford to. Just like we can afford to be "carbon neutral" more easily than some developing nation that wants to use "dirty coal" and petroleum to lift themselves out of poverty.

I'm sure most people would resort to whatever means of under certain circumstances, but that does not mitigate the indiscriminate damage done, which can literally depend on which way the wind goes. Another issue is need. Are they really the last resort or a matter of convenience?

 

[Craig234]

I think we first need to carefully define what a "chemical weapon" is. Is tear gas a chemical weapon? It is certainly a chemical, and it is being used as a weapon.

For the main topic of the thread, while I'm not going to go and get an exact definition from international law or UN information, I mean weapons like 'Sarin' and 'Mustard gas' which we generally refer to as "WMD", the sort that are effective for the mass killing of people that we treat differently than ordinary ordinance. I'd include 'biological weapons'; was just keeping it simple by using chemical.

It's a secondary issue to discuss this exact definition and whether to include any other weapons such as the others that can greatly harm civilian populations or cause the sorts of wounds that DU can cause - just ignore those for the main topic. The point I'm getting at is whether our demanding that governemnts accept losing a war that destroys their government (not losing a war like we did in Vietnam where we just leave), is a standward we're willing to meet if we had to make that choice.

Actually, I don't know this myself, does our red line include 'non-lethal' chemical weapons of the type that our own police use liberally?

No. Those are not 'red line weapons' and in fact are commonly used already.

What is the real difference between chemical weapons and a bomb? Why is it okay to drop a fuel-air explosive on someone that kills them by igniting the very air they breath, but not a chemical that kills them some other way? Is it just because of the potential to kill LOTS of people with very little effort that makes them scary? Then why not make our line in the sand the size of the weapon, and not the makeup of it? Maybe because we are really fond of our MOABs, and are fairly secure in our superiority in this area so that we don't have to fear other countries using it against us?

I don't know. What I do know is that when their back is against the wall, no country is going to care about a red line. They are going to use what they must to survive.

That's one of the questions I think this topic raises, getting people to be a bit more rational about asking exactly why and what differences make sense, what the reasons are.

And again, how reasonable it is for us to ask for other governments to fall rather that use those weapons, especially if we wouldn't; and if we really care about the use of them, and that's not realistic, what that means for the policies we should adopt. Should we even allow governments to have them at all, if we know we're just pretending they can be expected to show restraing about using them? How practical would it be to ban their existence and should we? If not practical, is all this red line stuff a bunch of nonsense?

Useful only for the advantage of giving us a sort of pretend moral high ground?

 

[Craig234]

On a related note, there's one or more biological things that are very dangerous to mankind that we've wiped out, expect in some preserved samples in laboratories, only in the US and USSR if I remember, and there's a scientific ethical debate whether every last specimen should be destroyed (to protect against the polssibility of their use as weapons) or not (to preserve them for 'science')? Of course pretty much anyone who wants to keep them as weapons will say the reason is for science.

 

[woolfe9998]

There isn't a straight forward answer because it depends on the circumstances. It's the same issue as torture - would we condemn it but use it ourselves? I might support it with a "ticking time bomb" situation but not in another circumstance.

If we in the US are facing mass death and destruction if we don't use chemical weapons, sure. If another nation is facing mass death and destruction if they don't use them, I would apply the same standard. The problem is that where it comes up in the real world is usually that some dictator like Saddam Hussein wants to use it to prop up his corrupt and brutal regime or worse, for ethnic cleansing. That's a bad analogy to the US in my view. Does the nature of the regime in question affect whether we would condemn or approve of its use? Of course it does. Does the nature of how its used (i.e. military versus civilian areas) affect whether we should condemn it or not? Certainly. Does the nature of the threat faced affect it? Yup.