Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
I see where you're coming from, but "regular murderous devices" compared to chemical/biological warfare is completely different. Hence, it's WMD classification and using Chem/Bio WMD, especially where civilians are involved just takes it up another notch.

But that's the thing - it is commonly accepted that chemical/biological warfare is completely different, but I don't know why.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, partially it has to do with the laws of war. (Yes, there are such things) The reason is that it's only real use is as a weapon of total war. Like nukes and napalm and Agent Orange. It's sole purpose is to kill every last living thing in an entire area. And since most soldiers get protective gear etc, the only real use for it is as a terror weapon on unprotected civvies (see Iraq for Saddam using it this way). It can stay in an area for years, depending on the agent used. Throw in that it's one of the most horrific, agonizing, ways to die you will ever hear of, and yeah, there's the reason.

Targeting civilians is against the rules of war, no matter how you do it.

And people killed by high explosives die some very agonising deaths as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
But in broad strokes, you're correct. We take a hard line on chemical/biological/nuclear weapon employment even in isolated instances because we do not want to creep towards consistent widespread deployment of any of them. It's basically a zero tolerance policy to ensure that nobody ever goes, "Well, the Syrians got away with X amount, so we'll use just a little bit more this time."

Can we not say the same thing about the targeting of civilians in general. That we should have a zero tolerance policy, to ensure nobody says 'well the Syrians got away with killing x amount, so we'll kill just a few more'?

 sebster wrote:
Can we not say the same thing about the targeting of civilians in general. That we should have a zero tolerance policy, to ensure nobody says 'well the Syrians got away with killing x amount, so we'll kill just a few more'?

Yes, and we do.

Major difference in that though its happening "over there". If it was happening on one home turf then its a different agenda. Its "alright" if they stay within the limits of their border. Once they start going outside the border then its a different ball game.

 Seaward wrote:
Yes, and we do.

So why isn't the killing of civilians enough? What does it matter that they were killed with chemical weapons?

 sebster wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Yes, and we do.

So why isn't the killing of civilians enough? What does it matter that they were killed with chemical weapons?

Because the use of NBC weapons is in most cases vastly easier to prove than the deliberate targeting of civilians with conventional weapons. Civilians die in war. Bombs go astray, fire missions get called on the wrong coordinates, passers by catch strays, things get misidentified, whatever. We know that and accept it as part of war. Where we draw the line is deliberate, indiscriminate civilian killing, but that's hard to prove most of the time.

With NBC, we don't face that hurdle. Did it get used? If so, doesn't matter who on, it's the red line. In most cases.

 Seaward wrote:
Because the use of NBC weapons is in most cases vastly easier to prove than the deliberate targeting of civilians with conventional weapons. Civilians die in war. Bombs go astray, fire missions get called on the wrong coordinates, passers by catch strays, things get misidentified, whatever. We know that and accept it as part of war. Where we draw the line is deliberate, indiscriminate civilian killing, but that's hard to prove most of the time.

With NBC, we don't face that hurdle. Did it get used? If so, doesn't matter who on, it's the red line. In most cases.

Fair point. Do you think that's how debate over this conflict has played out?

 sebster wrote:
Fair point. Do you think that's how debate over this conflict has played out?

No. I think NBC use considerations, and civilian killing for that matter, have been a part of it, but only a part of it.

I think we should've gone in a long, long time ago, but we didn't. I think it's become much harder to go in successfully now, while becoming much more difficult to avoid going in. Obama bluffed on the chemical red line, and it's been called. He wants more than anything, I believe, to avoid taking any action at all, because he's well aware that his party's had a lot of success beating up on Republicans for the past decade over mishandling our wars, and he has smart, experienced guys around him who have made it clear that intervention in Syria at any meaningful level would not be one iota prettier than either Iraq or Afghanistan.

 Seaward wrote:
Where we draw the line is deliberate, indiscriminate civilian killing, but that's hard to prove most of the time.

By "we" do you mean "the military"?

 dogma wrote:
By "we" do you mean "the military"?

I mean the portion of the world concerned with humanitarian intervention in general. I'm not sure if you're trying to suggest the US military engages in deliberate attacks on civilians or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and hope not.

 Seaward wrote:

I mean the portion of the world concerned with humanitarian intervention in general.

So you speak for the portion of the world that concerns itself with humanitarian intervention?

That is a bold claim.

 dogma wrote:
So you speak for the portion of the world that concerns itself with humanitarian intervention?

That is a bold claim.

Not at all. Simply broadly paraphrasing the criteria the UN Security Council looks at for determining whether humanitarian intervention is justified, and, more specifically, the historical NATO approach to NBC attacks and civilian targeting, especially within its sphere of influence.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you so woefully uninformed as to believe most of the world is comfortable with indiscriminate, deliberate civilian killing?

 Seaward wrote:

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or are you so woefully uninformed as to believe most of the world is comfortable with indiscriminate, deliberate civilian killing?

Well terrorists exist, so obviously some people are comfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians.

As to whether or not most people are comfortable with such behavior? I don't know, and neither do you.

 dogma wrote:
Well terrorists exist, so obviously some people are comfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians.

As to whether or not most people are comfortable with such behavior? I don't know, and neither do you.

Okay.

Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion about the rationale for possible Syrian intervention?

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Well terrorists exist, so obviously some people are comfortable with the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians.

As to whether or not most people are comfortable with such behavior? I don't know, and neither do you.

Okay.

Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion about the rationale for possible Syrian intervention?

You are aware who you are talking to right?

I don't expect anything before Sunday and thus will preserve judgement on this one yet. If they UN report, however, turns out to show that Assad really used chemical weapons, then bombs away.

...and really, what weight does Russia have in speaking about moral? The same Russia that imprisons homosexuals, tortures and kills political enemies?

 Sigvatr wrote:
I don't expect anything before Sunday and thus will preserve judgement on this one yet. If they UN report, however, turns out to show that Assad really used chemical weapons, then bombs away.

...and really, what weight does Russia have in speaking about moral? The same Russia that imprisons homosexuals, tortures and kills political enemies?

Doesn't matter at all, they can veto.

 Soladrin wrote:
Doesn't matter at all, they can veto.

Veto what? This wouldn't be a Security Council-authorized strike. It'd be unilateral, or else a NATO coalition because hey, Turkey.

The Security Council is a joke anyway. With nations like Russia having a veto right, it fails to actually do its purpose. Nations that openly violate basic human rights should not be allowed to even be part of the SC.

If folks are hell bent on intervening because killing a few hundred with chem is worse than killing 10s of thousands conventionally, I submit those folks need to re-evaluate why they feel that way.

The 'chem means deliberate targeting of civilians' reasoning is flawed. You can (and in this case looks like it was) use non-persistent agents to clear/breach an area to make it easier for troops to get in, much like you would use a conventional strike. Except, especially in an urban environment the required shelling to suppress an area also destroys structures and infrastructure that a non-persistent agent does not. And the non-persistent agent can suppress forces in structures more effectively than HE in many cases.

You can use it to secure a flank or as a short duration obstacle to maneuver/area denial technique (easier than laying mines). Plenty of military uses.

And you can (and the Syrian army has, as have various groups of rebels) deliberately target civilians with conventional means.

Again, deliberately targeting civilians should be the issue. The few hundred dead due to being slimed is nothing compared to the 10s of thousands dead from conventional means.

And once you admit to yourselves that our nations have sat back and watch much larger scale genocide over the last few decades many times, I submit this is a lower level of carnage and limited to within the borders of a single nation at this point. What is our national interest and how is it best served?

The best I got right now to justify intervention is our Pres has declared a Red Line and we look weak not punishing those that cross it. Is that really enough justification to allocate resources to this conflict? If so, what specific objectives (from policy level on down) do you expect and want to be met?

Would launching strikes at a few known chem weapon storage sites be enough of a wrist slap? That is as far as I think we should go at this point.

 CptJake wrote:
I'm okay with sitting back and doing nothing until our politicians explain EXACTLY what our objectives are and go through the formal process of having congress fund the operation.

We have stayed out of a LOT of bloody civil wars over the last several decades and let lots of children die absolutely horrible deaths. This is no different.

I know its a crazy thought, but belief it or not, the US has stayed out of most civil wars in the world. This should be an addition to that list.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I'm okay with sitting back and doing nothing until our politicians explain EXACTLY what our objectives are and go through the formal process of having congress fund the operation.

We have stayed out of a LOT of bloody civil wars over the last several decades and let lots of children die absolutely horrible deaths. This is no different.

I know its a crazy thought, but belief it or not, the US has stayed out of most civil wars in the world. This should be an addition to that list.

Double standards of the worst variety. In 1776, in North America, there was a minor disagreement between some decent English fellows, but the Americans got involved and dragged it down with their revolution nonsense! Same thing happened in 1861!

On a serious note, I'd never thought I'd be agreeing with the Russian foreign minister, but what are a few missile strikes going to do? I mean really do? So they destroy a few buildings and/or presidential palaces. Then what? In my view, this is one of the curses of modern warfare, the idea that you can push a button and solve problems. The main underlying problems will not go away, politicians have been seduced by this easy option.

Some questions for the Americans:

1) What's with John McCain? Seriously? Every interview I've seen of the guy in the last 48hrs has almost descended into farce. The guy just wants to strap himself to a cruise missile and fire into Syria! Totally gung-ho. I don't question the man's courage, but you'd expect representatives to be cool headed and detached.

2) Why are the countries with low budget militaries (France/ Britain) wanting to go all Rambo, but the planet's No.1 military are reluctant to get involved. If this was 40k, it would be the PDF launching a crusade, whilst the Space Marines had a sit down to think about it!

For the record, I hope our countries stay well clear, but it's a strange series of events.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
2) Why are the countries with low budget militaries (France/ Britain) wanting to go all Rambo, but the planet's No.1 military are reluctant to get involved. If this was 40k, it would be the PDF launching a crusade, whilst the Space Marines had a sit down to think about it!

For the record, I hope our countries stay well clear, but it's a strange series of events.

Two reasons:

1) They know they're not going without the US, so it's pretty easy to make a show of principle when your involvement is going to be token.

2) They know the US isn't going.

I'll just put this here

Yep looks like we're going the Clinton fire fifty cruise missiles route.

Oh well. Its a fig leaf I guess.

 Seaward wrote:

Napalm ain't 'illegal' to use in warfare.

UN's 1980 'Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons' prohibits it's use against civilians, which was what I was talking about, not it's use on military targets. 'Total War' isn't war made on a military, it's war made on people. Sherman in Georgia, the blitz on London, the firebombing of Dresden, that sort of thing



SecDef Hagel says US ready to launch when POTUS is. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23847839

I will say that, airstrikes and missiles, if coordinated with some of the larger rebel factions, could be quite effective. The Syrian military's main advantage over the Syrian opposition is air power and artillery support. Eliminate those...


CptJake the problem with that scenario is that you're indiscriminately killing everyone, military and civilian in that area, and even a short lived agent still can last for a half an hour or more, which is plenty of time to spread given how wind corridors form in urban areas. I know you can plead 'acceptable collateral damage' but wiping out everything for several blocks is still wiping out everything for several blocks. And properly equipped soldiers might not even be effected, other than a possible hit to morale seeing the civvies dying around then. Basically you get a crime against humanity for no military gain.

 Seaward wrote:

 Soladrin wrote:
Doesn't matter at all, they can veto.

Veto what? This wouldn't be a Security Council-authorized strike. It'd be unilateral, or else a NATO coalition because hey, Turkey.

Exactly... we don't need UN's authorization to use our military.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:
Yep looks like we're going the Clinton fire fifty cruise missiles route.

Oh well. Its a fig leaf I guess.

Nope... full fledge "Wag the Dog" mode is coming up...

If not, when the Mily Cyrus / Batfleck rage subsides, scandalpalooza continues.

Two random thoughts about our options militarily:

1. If we are mad about Chemical Weapons, it makes sens to launch air strikes and Missiels at Chemical Weapons stockpiles, launchers, plants, etc.

2. It might also be a good idea to dismantle the Air Defense system, and let the Syrians know that if they continue, the next air strikes won't just be at the Air Defense network.

However, I don't know anything about such things, so I have no idea how feasible/risky these options are.

 Easy E wrote:
Two random thoughts about our options militarily:

1. If we are mad about Chemical Weapons, it makes sens to launch air strikes and Missiels at Chemical Weapons stockpiles, launchers, plants, etc.

Easier said than done. First you'd need reliable intel about their locations. For example, it's hard to tell via sat recon one rocket or artillery shell from another. It's not like there's a big sign out front hat says 'CW Here!'. You also run the risk of releasing it and killing everyone yourself if done improperly.

We know where storage facilities are. And we have munitions specifically designed to destroy chem stockpiles.

Which would make us instantly the bad guys. Expect pics of dead civies and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

I wonder if Iran will pop off some of the Hezzbullah they have in the US, or keep them on the leash. This could get interesting, best to alert the AAA wiener dog battalions.