Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)
 

geek tragedy

(68,868 posts)
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 05:29 PM Aug 2013

Were the drafters of international treaties banning chemical weapons stupid? [View all]

Lots of talk around DU about how using poison gas to kill people in war is no different than using bullets or bayonets or drones.

So, this must mean that there was zero logical reason to ban their use in war.

And that it must have been for entirely irrational reasons that even the Nazis didn't use chemical munitions.

So, why bother ban these things or prohibit their production and stockpiling?

Background:

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


5 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Killing is killing, it was foolish to pass treaties banning chemical weapons in war
0 (0%)
There was a very sound basis for criminalizing the use of chemical weapons in war, regardless of context.
5 (100%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll
34 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Just to comment: The Nazis had no problem using them on civilians. NutmegYankee Aug 2013 #1
They didn't use them on the Russians or Poles, who had no air force and geek tragedy Aug 2013 #3
The Russians took tons of prisoners on the eastern front. NutmegYankee Aug 2013 #6
how many were allowed to survive? nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #14
For German POWs held by the Soviet Union, about 2.4 million went home by 1950 NutmegYankee Aug 2013 #16
thx nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #17
If one country busted them out against the other major powers in WWII, everyone would Posteritatis Aug 2013 #11
I think that back in WWI PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #2
They were only tactically effective a handful of times, actually Posteritatis Aug 2013 #8
Good info. PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #12
The short version is it's pretty hard to overestimate how stupid they were, for sure Posteritatis Aug 2013 #13
World War I blueridge3210 Aug 2013 #34
An internatonal conferance on the Conventons of war should be convened ... Agnosticsherbet Aug 2013 #4
There are international treaties banning land mines and cluster munitions. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #5
And Bush, and Clinton, and Reagan. Agnosticsherbet Aug 2013 #9
Treaties are fine, but who is going to enforce them and how. Downwinder Aug 2013 #7
Times change Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #10
you think chemical weapons were banned because they were too effective? nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #15
Yes they were very efficient in WWI Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #18
um geek tragedy Aug 2013 #19
Disagree with that heavily Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #24
Many people disagree with facts. Chemical weapons caused a tiny fraction of the war's casualties. nt Posteritatis Aug 2013 #26
Chemical weapons were not used at the onset of WWI Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #30
Gas shells were one quarter of all shells fired, and caused four percent of the casualties. (nt) Posteritatis Aug 2013 #32
The problem is that this is very a conservative estimate of casualties by chemical weapons Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #33
Chemical weapons are unreliable. They go where the wind sends them. Downwinder Aug 2013 #22
Which often happened. Chem weapons were probably the *least* effective weapons of that war. (nt) Posteritatis Aug 2013 #23
Trenches were not that close of proximity Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #25
ALL weapons of war should be banned, permanently. 99Forever Aug 2013 #20
People arguing that use of chemical weapons is "the same" as use of other weapons are simply foolish alcibiades_mystery Aug 2013 #21
+1 n/t FSogol Aug 2013 #27
Would they also say then that the use of Nuclear weapons is "the same"? VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #28
If politically palatable, probably Posteritatis Aug 2013 #29
**facepalm** VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Were the drafters of inte...