Killing with bullets and bombs is acceptable while gassing is not?

[superpatriotman]

"I would say the moral red line should be the killing of people, rather than killing them with chemical weapons. The distinction between not killing people at all and killing them, is far greater than the moral distinction between killing people with conventional weapons, and killing them with chemical weapons. So if morally we say 'it's okay to have war and kill people,' once we accept that then say 'it's not okay to kill people with chemical weapons, that's a special red line' that seems morally problematic."
-Michel Labossiere, Philosophy professor

Some important info on Chemical Weapons:

Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.

What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block the action of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, which literally removes acetylcholine, one type of neurotransmitter. That leaves the victim’s nerves literally turned on and unable to transmit impulses. Death is typically caused by suffocation, as the nerves controlling the diaphragm and accessory muscles are paralyzed.

Blood agents are typically something like cyanide, which blocks oxygen usage and transport at a cellular level.

Choking agents attack the lungs, such as chlorine or phosgene oxime. The lungs literally fill with fluid, the victim literally drowning in their own bodily fluids.

Vomiting agents are like tear gas on steroids. Choking from the agent, just as with tear gas, but more severe, which induces vomiting.

Blistering agents, sulfur mustard, lewisite, cause massive blisters on the skin, eyes and respiratory passages. Death can occur from suffocation, but isn’t extremely common, save in children.
Incapacitating agents are things like agent BZ, fentanyl based gas, such as was used to end the Moscow Theater terrorist attack. Not intended to be lethal, but just to incapacitate the victim, either by inducing a dream-like, euphoric state or inducing a stuporous state.

Riot control agents, OC/pepper spray or CS are the most common. Can cause lethal effects in high concentrations, can cause blistering in high concentrations and can be lethal to children.

[RainCaster]

1. Why not? The NRA and Putin would approve

If you have small fingers it's the only thing you can do

[unblock]

2. The main argument against chemical weaponry is civilian casualties.

Guns and bombs can be more precisely targeted on military assets and personnel.

Gas goes everywhere.


There's also a torture argument, for some chemical weapons which cause undue suffering first rather than "merely" killing.

[superpatriotman]

3. True see OP edited

[TheRealNorth]

4. Shock & Awe

In 1945, we justified the use of two nuclear weapons by rationalizing the destruction of two cities would save lives if it prevented a full-scale invasion of Japan.

[TomSlick]

5. War has always been part of the human condition.

In the context of human history, international law and norms regarding limits on the means of conducting war is a recent phenomenon. The international law and norms setting limits on the means of conducting war are important - not just to save lives - but to decrease human suffering that is beyond the requirements of military necessity.

In a war, military necessity involves killing the military forces of the enemy. Military necessity cannot justify the targeting of civilians or the use of weapons that result in unnecessary suffering. As a result, these are forbidden.

I agree that the world would be a better place if there was no more wars. Until that day, humanity must do what it can to decrease the unnecessary horrors of war.

That being said, I am not persuaded that the current AUF authorizes this attack. I am also not convinced the attack is consistent with the requirements of international law concerning the steps toward war.

[Snackshack]

6. Yes...

Believe it or not there is a right way and a wrong way to make people dead...apparently.

I think making a person dead is wrong no matter the way but that is just me.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

7. Kind of like claiming to be a Christian and supporting the death penalty.

[former9thward]

8. I have never understood your argument.

Where in the Bible is there anything against the death penalty? The Bible is full of people dying because of wrongs against God. The Bible is not a pacifist document.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

9. I guess the Commandment about not killing doesn't count?

Although you are right that the Bible is full of murder, rape, and all sorts of horrors.

I was raised Roman Catholic, which means I didn't read the Bible growing up. When I finally did so as an adult I was astonished and horrified. I will say that much of the early part of the Old Testament reads like science fiction.

[former9thward]

10. Christians world wide know that Commandment is for unjust killings.

The same section outlining the Commandments proscribes the death penalty for the breaking of the Commandments (and other early Jewish rules). Only people with a pacifist agenda interpret that Commandment as you do. (Yes, I know recent Popes have come out against the death penalty but that is because of how it is applied.)

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

13. I have been told that the original Hebrew is pretty direct.

No kill. Whether a killing is just or unjust can often be open to interpretation.

There does not seem to be a laundry list of exceptions after that Commandment. Which means that anyone who claims to be interpreting the Bible literally should be opposed to all killing, period. Of course, the fact that there are other places where killing is not only sanctioned but prescribed, is a huge problem.

Personally, the first time I heard the story where God told some guy to murder his son I was so horrified I was speechless.

.

[MicaelS]

14. And yet after God gave those laws to Moses...

Joshua, Moses appointed successor, went out and killed whole peoples at God's command. THAT is why I never subscribed to the notion that Thou shall not kill, meant that, rather I read it as Thous shall not Murder. Murder being defined as unlawful killing.

[Mariana]

15. God nevertheless commanded that people be executed

for various crimes, and he also ordered all those genocides, so he obviously doesn't have a problem with killing in general. Capital punishment wasn't optional for those crimes, it was required. Plus, Christianity only exists in the first place because the death penalty was inflicted upon Christ, with God's blessing.

So, there's plenty of wiggle room there. A Christian may take any stance he feels like on capital punishment, and no matter what it is, he can point to the Bible and rightly claim it supports his position.

[rgbecker]

11. We'll be celebrating the 73rd anniversary on August 6th.

Very effective A Bomb on Hiroshima. They say it ended the war without the necessity of putting in "boots on the ground."

[NCTraveler]

12. Killing with bombs and bullets is acceptable in certain circumstances, IMO.

Gas... Never.

They aren’t on the same playing field.