What's special about the use of poison gas?

[Stinky The Clown]

I know its awful and, apart from killing, can have life long consequences for the victims. I know all that. My question is why we make a distinction between that and other forms of killing.

Bombs in the right place can maim and kill as many or more in a single attack.

Indiscriminate shooting with an automatic weapon can maim and kill as many or more in a single attack.

The US, among many others, has used napalm, which can maim and kill as many or more in a single attack.

The US, so far singularly, has used nuclear devices, which can maim or kill as many or more in a single attack.

Cruise missiles.

Bunker Busters

Daisy Cutters.

Lots of "cool shit that kills."

My question is why the higher level of moral outrage for poison gas but not for other means of mass maiming or killing?

To be clear, I believe Assad used poison gas to kill his own people. That act is a crime against humanity and needs to be properly addressed. This post is not a debate on how that might occur. This post is more philosophical and is solely about the seeming hypocrisy with respect to distinctions without meaningful differences.

[KittyWampus]

1. Great question. Perhaps a part is the history of non-use (with notable exceptions)?

Perhaps then, psychology is also involved.

And the indiscriminate aspect.

[onehandle]

2. Poison gas was the nuclear weapon of WWI, but American gun companies kill far more today.

Cruise missile them.

[NYC_SKP]

3. Originally, I think it was these three factors:

That it was more difficult to control and limit to specific areas, compared to projectiles and explosives, more likely to injure innocents.

That it had a lasting effect, with residual impacts, more likely to injure innocents.

The it was considered to cause far more pain and agony than conventional arms.

None of these have to be factually true to explain people's sensitivities toward them.

``
We've been lowering the bar for generations: At one time each of these were unthinkable: Firebombing residential areas; Nukes dropped on cities; indiscriminate laying of land mines.

We're guilty of all of these, and more.

[KT2000]

4. post WWI - the world

was horrified by the use of mustard gas in that war. An effort was started to stop its use and it has been one of the most successful weapon control efforts.
Chemical weapons cause a most painful and slow death - of civilians. It is an inefficient weapon for the battlefield and as you already know, its use is on civilians. Same for biological weapons.

I think that the Chemical Weapons Convention is worth preserving. It has been put together with great effort since the 1920s. Without response this whole effort could end up meaning nothing. How seriously would any nation take arms control efforts?

[Jenoch]

5. It all stems from the horrors of gas used in the battles of WWI.

In WWI there were not the sophisticated weapons we have today, but the gas was indescriminate. You couldn't target the gas, it went everywhere. International treaties have outlawed using poisonous gas in warfare, biological too, if I'm not mistaken.

[Mnemosyne]

6. Fallujah. nt

[pokerfan]

7. We still use napalm

We just don't call it napalm.

The Mark 77 bomb (MK-77) is a US 340-kilogram (750 lb) air-dropped incendiary bomb carrying 416 litres (110 U.S. gal) of a fuel gel mix which is the direct successor to napalm.

The MK-77 is the primary incendiary weapon currently in use by the United States military. Instead of the gasoline, polystyrene, and benzene mixture used in napalm bombs, the MK-77 uses kerosene-based fuel with a lower concentration of benzene. The Pentagon has claimed that the MK-77 has less impact on the environment than napalm. The mixture reportedly also contains an oxidizing agent, making it more difficult to put out once ignited, as well as white phosphorus.

The effects of MK-77 bombs are so similar to those of napalm that even many members of the U.S. military continue to refer to them as "napalm" bombs in informal situations. The official designation of Vietnam-era napalm bombs was the Mark 47.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_77_bomb

[morningfog]

8. The gas attacks represents only about 1.4% of the total number killed in the civil war thus far.

You point is well taken.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. cluster bombs and land mines and torture and WAR CRIMES.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions: not a signatory - USA.
The Convention on Landmines: not a signatory - USA.
International Criminal Court: opted out - USA.
Geneva Conventions - declared obsolete by Bush (idiot) et al. (Note it is the GC that form the basis of any war crime violations by Syria.)

We are a fucking joke when it comes to war crimes

[Woof_Woof]

10. Part of a global standard....

... and there is a push to make sure that this additional means of attack is not normalized or accepted.

It has a strong psychological effect as well by being totally indiscriminate, difficult to target and something that can easily go beyond the intended "target"

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. Mustard gas can take up to five weeks to actually kill you...

I'd much rather be blown to smithereens on the spot that spend the last month of my life wishing that I'd been blown to smithereens on the spot.

And I have not idea what a "smithereen" is or if there is a metric equivalent.

[pnwmom]

12. What's special is that there are international agreements prohibiting it, signed

by governments representing 98% of the world's people.

The question is whether such agreements are meaningless or not.

[brooklynite]

13. What's special about kittens on the subway tracks?

Plenty of cats in the world; plenty of cats die every day.

The fact is we respond emotionally to more significant events than to the ordinary (relatively speaking) things we experience daily.

[msongs]

14. 100 K killed in regular ways = No biggee, 1 K gassed = OMG it has to stop now nt

[Link Speed]

15. Because it's not napalm, DU, WP, Agent Orange, etc

You know, the shit we use. If we deploy any of that crap, it's OK and everyone accepts it.

I've seen the results of all four, up close and personal.