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.

So we're moving onto 'It's okay for Russia to indiscrimently murder people on British soil, as long as they do it quietly?'

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
So we're moving onto 'It's okay for Russia to indiscrimently murder people on British soil, as long as they do it quietly?'

I believe we're moving on to why chemical weapon are more bad than firearms, which are also bad.

Apparently chemical weapons poisoning over 100 people with unclear long term effects is less bad than shooting someone with a gun because sometimes a bullet could hit a bystander. Certain Russian posters on here will justify anything, it’s astonishing. Though maybe if my country was so underhanded, malicious and unscrupulous I’d be embarrassed and want to say anything to save face too.

Perhaps certain posters here aren't as pigheaded as they wish to appear, and are just making their proactive comments to get a reaction out of people? Even if they are plainly ignorant, arguing with them just detracts from any meaningful discussion- which in my experience on a couple of boards is exactly their intention.

Would you seriously bother arguing with someone on the street who's saying the moon's made out of cheese? There's an ignore button for a reason guys...

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Bullets also have a nasty tendency to miss their target and kill and injure innocent bystanders.

*insert joke about Russian and 'gangsta' marksmanship here*

If you're hitting bystanders in an assassination, you're not missing. You're causing as much chaos as possible to cover an exit or you're sending a message. At least if we're talking the level of professionalism that is typically employed by national governments using non-disposable assets..

 Haighus wrote:
I think it does come down to the precision. For example- shoot the guy in his house, and only his daughter is also at risk. First responders etc are not at risk, other than if they try to apprehend the assassin (which is true eitherway).

The chemical appears to have been smeared on his door, to target just him. Yet despite being on just his house, it has potentially affected 130+ people, because the Skripals themselves have unknowingly spread the chemical further. The local postman could've gotten almost as big a dose. The chemical has been capable of injuring people long after it was applied in the actual assassination attempt. It is very much more inherently indiscriminate, and importantly hard to control. The fact no one has died so far is more luck than anything else.

Firearms can be used more indiscriminately, but they are inherently less indiscriminate than a fire-and-forget weapon that contaminates the entire area, like the novichok did.

I think I can agree with that. The location and the way a weapon is used is important. But that goes both ways. If they had just poisoned him inside his house, rather than through the door handle, only his daughter would have also been at risk. But if they had tried to shoot him at the pub, that would have put a lot more people at risk. So I still think it is not inherently worse, because you can use nerve gas in a very controlled, discriminate way as well with a much lesser risk of harming bystanders (see the assassination of Kim Jong Nam), and you can use guns in just as indiscriminate a way as you can use nerve gas. How 'bad' and 'malicious' a weapon is all depends on the way you use it. And while the novichok did contaminate a wide area, it did not do so in a dose high enough to be really harmful, which is why the people at the pub and such did not have to be hospitalised. Also, it does not make chemical weapons worse than other 'fire-and-forget' assassination weapons, such as bombs, which coincidentally also have a ridiculously high risk of causing collateral damage, I think much more so than a limited dose of novichok.

That being said, while I still disagree that novichok or other chemical weapons are inherently more malicious than other weapons, I do think that I must agree that Russia's use of the novichok was pretty malicious in this case. Because as you say, they applied the agent to Skripal's door handle, which means that the postman or any random, innocent visitor could have been poisoned. That is pretty damn malicious. Not more malicious than if they had strapped a bomb to the door handle, but malicious nonetheless.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Apparently chemical weapons poisoning over 100 people with unclear long term effects is less bad than shooting someone with a gun because sometimes a bullet could hit a bystander. Certain Russian posters on here will justify anything, it’s astonishing. Though maybe if my country was so underhanded, malicious and unscrupulous I’d be embarrassed and want to say anything to save face too.

Apparently you seem to think it very clear that poisoning 100 people is worse than shooting 100 people, but are unable to explain why.
Also, in this case, there weren't 100 people that got poisoned, it was just 3. The more than 100 people you are referring to where just the people who were in the same area as the victims. They were advised to wash their clothes just to be sure, but afaik none of them got poisoned.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Bullets also have a nasty tendency to miss their target and kill and injure innocent bystanders.

*insert joke about Russian and 'gangsta' marksmanship here*

If you're hitting bystanders in an assassination, you're not missing. You're causing as much chaos as possible to cover an exit or you're sending a message. At least if we're talking the level of professionalism that is typically employed by national governments using non-disposable assets..

You are generalising waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much.
There is a myriad ways and reasons that even a trained marksman could miss his target. And you are assuming intelligence agencies do not use disposable assets to carry out assassinations. Why risk one of your valuable agents when you can just conscript a thug? Way less risk. If he gets caught he won't betray anything important and you won't lose one of your agents.

I'm not quoting because they are difficult to manage on mobile.

I don't think "chemical" weapons as a category is inherently worse than firearms, I agree with you. But it does seem novichok especially is, or at least likely was before they used it and found out it wasn't as lethal as intended for whatever reason (this is conjecture on my part, but when it comes down to it no one has died yet, unlike the Korean assassination you mention, see below).

The novichok has proven to be toxic long after the initial poisoning, as the copper was poisoned when aiding the unconscious Skripals after they were some distance from their home, and had apparently been through half of Salisbury. Dangerously large amounts still seem to be present in Salisbury, days after the attack. In addition, whilst it has not been immediately lethal so far, we have basically no idea of the long term impacts of any of the 130+ exposed. The vast majority are fine now, but may have long-term sequelae due to exposure.

Anybody developing the agent would know it lingers in the environment at dangerous levels for extended periods of time. They would also likely havelittle knowledge of the long-term effects, because it is such a rare agent, and the testing on humans is likely limited.

This tells us that using such an agent in a built-up area is very reckless, or uncaringly indiscriminate. I don't think this is universal to chemical attacks, but seems universal to novichok, as it appears to be hard to contain with the lengthy contamination.

I believe contamination is the real issue with chemical, biological and radioactive weapons (less so nukes), as they tendto taint an area for an extended period. At least bombs are one-off events, although they are also inappropriately indiscriminate for an assassination.

Using the firearms analogy, it is like using a .50 cal machine gun to spray the house from a block away, rather than using a low-penetration 9mm to the face. A 9mm is unlikely to go through a wall and hurt someone else, but a .50 could go through several. In choosing novichok, they've chosen the .50 with more chance of colateral damage, rather than the contained 9mm of a more predictable agent.


Regarding the use of novichok specifically, the attack honestly feels like a field test of the weapon as much as an assassination. Two birds in one stone. I wouldn't be surprised if the results have been dissapointing- if the weapon had been as lethal as expected, then probably at least three people would be dead by now, if not more.

Well, even Ireland has expelled Russian diplomats over this.

Its not a field test, the agent used was apparently developed in the 1970's. We can be certain the Soviets knew how it worked and how to apply it.

Novichok was used as an open warning and rallying card, no direct witnesses (that we know of) but a hit job that could only feasibly be carried out by the Russian state.

The timing before the election is not coincidental, it tells Putins supporters that he is hard line enough to deal with 'traitors'. There is a lot of harkening back to the glory days of the Soviet Union, a rosy nostalgia flag as opposed to the reality of blood red. Putin has arranged so that he is seen as the embodiment of that, and the ideal that Russians/Soviets can do as they please is a major part of the mindset.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:
Well, even Ireland has expelled Russian diplomats over this.

Anyone could be next. France has dragged their heels though, but even they take the threat seriously.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

See, this is why you think I'm wrong, because you're reasoning is off. What was factually wrong then? Russia still had a choice of trading Skripal, it wasn't forced at gunpoint. This is how the spy game goes. If they had wanted him dead they could have just killed him 10 years ago.

It still doesn't address the fact that even if he had any relevant intel left, which is highly doubtful, why they had to deploy a chemical weapon. Just because you're a critical nationalist doesn't mean you still aren't a nationalist when you say things like forever a traitor or using chemical weapons isn't malice...

How am I being prejudiced, if they had just shot the guy fine, still bad but that is how it goes. But being outraged by deploying fething chemical weapons is prejudice? You think its normal?

Where were you being factually wrong? I told you that. It was in your discussion with Elk. It is off topic, so just forget about it. It is not important. Or PM me if you really need to hear it.
There was no need to kill Skripal 10 years ago. He was going to be in prison, serve his sentence and probably never be allowed to leave Russia ever again. When Russia was forced to release him and send him to the West, that changed.
True, Russia was not forced at gunpoint to let him go. But they needed to let someone go to get their people back. They definitely did not let him go willingly.
As to chemical weapons, what is it that automatically makes a chemical so much worse than another weapon. You say it would have been fine if they just shot him. What if they had shot him with a machine gun and killed 10 innocent bystanders? Would that not have been worse? Or if they had shot him with a pistol in bright daylight, with lots of witnesses to be left traumatised? A chemical like that provides an effective way to kill someone quietly, which is one of the reasons I suspect it was used (the other reasons I suspect is it being a field test, as this chemical has not been used in real operations before and of course the making of a statement). It caused some collateral damage, with several innocent people harmed. But other weapons and ways of assassination also carry that risk. And yes, in larger quantities this chemical can be used to kill large amounts of people. But so can other weapons. What is so inherently malicious about a chemical?
Chemical weapons are really bad news if they get used as weapons of mass destruction. But when they are only used on a small scale, in small doses, I honestly don't see why they are worse than other weapons.
Hell, some chemical weapons are (or were in the past) even used as pesticides. Where those farmers malicious too?
But to clarify, because I think we might have a misunderstanding, do you think that the assassination itself was malicious, or just the use of a chemical weapon?

I wasn't wrong though, but ok.

The fething problem is that a gun can be used much less indiscriminately. The problem is they took the weapon that both causes more suffering and likely additional casualties. I can't believe you're actually trying to justify the use of chemical weapons.

Yeah the method used is the malicious element. All states engage in assasination and while I still consider that bad, its still a step above deliberatly picking the approach that is much more likely to hurt and permanently injure innocent bystanders. His daughter might suffer from lasting effects because of the convoluted mustache twirling method.

Bullets also have a nasty tendency to miss their target and kill and injure innocent bystanders. The amount of assassinations with guns in which innocents were injured or killed are many. With this chemical, only 3 people were hospitalised in the end (the target and only two bystanders) and no one was killed (yet), so it is not like the spreading or lethality is that bad. I don't think this is enough evidence to be able to say that this means that chemical weapons are likely to cause much more additional casualties. Yes, chemical weapons have the capability to create vast amounts of casualties, but they not necessarily do. They only create mass casualties if they are deliberately spread to do so. But then again, guns in sufficient quantity and with sufficient rates of fire can also cause mass casualties. And while they can cause suffering and long-lasting health effects, so can being wounded by a bullet. I know several people who are still in huge pain every day because of bullet wounds they received in the past.
Now you guys are saying things like "I can't believe you are defending chemical weapons", but that is a fallacy, not an argument. You have not actually yet made it clear to me why the use of a chemical weapon in this case was so much more malicious than the use of a gun.
Like, I get why you guys are so opposed to chemical weapons. There is something sinister about them. I too initially had this response. But now that you guys made me thing about it, I think that this response might not be entirely rational. I need to hear some good arguments.

I mean you do realize they could just have broken into his home at night and put one in him while he was sleeping. They had all the time in the world to conduct this assasination to avoid causing innocent people to get hurt. Yet the method they deliberatly picked had no way of avoiding innocent people, as evidenced by his daughter and others. It came down to basic luck that nobody else got seriously hurt.

How is saying you're defending the use of chemical weapons a fallacy? You do realize the international community including Russia consider the use of chemical weapons a crime? Plus there is such a thing as proportionality. This "oh I don't get why chemical weapons are such a big deal" is incredibly facetious.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
[q Apparently you seem to think it very clear that poisoning 100 people is worse than shooting 100 people, but are unable to explain why.

Bears no resemblance to what I said so try harder.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
So we're moving onto 'It's okay for Russia to indiscrimently murder people on British soil, as long as they do it quietly?'

I believe we're moving on to why chemical weapon are more bad than firearms, which are also bad.

To be fair, its likely the use of chemical weapons that made this case such a big deal. While it would still be wrong to have shot him, I honestly believe that the international response would have been a lot less intense.

Indeed, a bullet would kill the target. This chemical attack has put a couple bystanders in hospital, we’ve had public places needed to be chemiically scrubbed, over 100 people throwing their contaminated clothes away and the possibility of unknown health effects later.

It’s like killing someone with a bomb, blasting a street full of people with shrapnel and then saying ‘yeah but stray bullets could hurt people too so what’s the problem *snigger*’

Economic sanctions are likely to be quite specialised and atrgetted.

They will take the form of clamping down selectively on the Russian kleptocrats who surround Putin.

These people are in London not just because London is nice, and they can move to France if they like. They are in London because London is a uniquely friendly place for dirty money which is also a world city in a major first world nation.

Paris isn't and won't be friendly to dirty money like that.

So the idea behind these sanctions will be to hurt Putin and his friends directly. This won't have any real effect on the Russian people as a whole.

Ah, good old Russian government. Whose preferred method of diplomacy is to say, "You have to acknowledge my superiority, or I can't keep your family from suffering from suspicious circumstances".

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Ah, good old Russian government. Whose preferred method of diplomacy is to say, "You have to acknowledge my superiority, or I can't keep your family from suffering from suspicious circumstances".

'Nice Country ya got here, be a shame is somethin happened to it.'

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Ah, good old Russian government. Whose preferred method of diplomacy is to say, "You have to acknowledge my superiority, or I can't keep your family from suffering from suspicious circumstances".

'Nice Country ya got here, be a shame is somethin happened to it.'

Well... Russia is a mafia state...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I mean you do realize they could just have broken into his home at night and put one in him while he was sleeping. They had all the time in the world to conduct this assasination to avoid causing innocent people to get hurt. Yet the method they deliberatly picked had no way of avoiding innocent people, as evidenced by his daughter and others. It came down to basic luck that nobody else got seriously hurt.

How is saying you're defending the use of chemical weapons a fallacy? You do realize the international community including Russia consider the use of chemical weapons a crime? Plus there is such a thing as proportionality. This "oh I don't get why chemical weapons are such a big deal" is incredibly facetious.

I know that, but I wonder why. That is not called being facetious, that is called being curious.
The chemical was used in a very callous way. But an explosive could have been used in just such a callous way. Chemicals can also be used in a very precise way. Explosives are much harder to use precisely. Why are chemical weapons so much worse than the explosive weapons? So far no one in this thread seems to have found an answer to that yet. So that is why I think it comes down to emotion. Do you have another explanation?

I think the kind of chemical that is considered a "WMD" is the kind that is intrinsically hard to contain and control, and therefore inherently indiscriminate. There are loads of chemicals that are toxic that are not considered chemical weapons, and the ones that are tend to taint there area and contaminate it. I think that is the key difference. Some chemical weapons are probably erroneously considered "WMDs", which are precise and controllable, but they are usually just called poisons/toxins.

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I mean you do realize they could just have broken into his home at night and put one in him while he was sleeping. They had all the time in the world to conduct this assasination to avoid causing innocent people to get hurt. Yet the method they deliberatly picked had no way of avoiding innocent people, as evidenced by his daughter and others. It came down to basic luck that nobody else got seriously hurt.

How is saying you're defending the use of chemical weapons a fallacy? You do realize the international community including Russia consider the use of chemical weapons a crime? Plus there is such a thing as proportionality. This "oh I don't get why chemical weapons are such a big deal" is incredibly facetious.

I know that, but I wonder why. That is not called being facetious, that is called being curious.
The chemical was used in a very callous way. But an explosive could have been used in just such a callous way. Chemicals can also be used in a very precise way. Explosives are much harder to use precisely. Why are chemical weapons so much worse than the explosive weapons? So far no one in this thread seems to have found an answer to that yet. So that is why I think it comes down to emotion. Do you have another explanation?

Yet you don't fully understand the difference that not all weapons are equal. Even explosives get differentiated on the international stage. Certain types of explosives are also very much frowned upon if not outright banned like chemical weapons. Think of your garden variety landmine or cluster bombs. Use of those quickly edges into war crime territory due to collateral damage. A distinction is even made between bullets, dum dum bullets are also very much frowned upon and banned by the signatories of the Hague Convention.

One should not assume all weapons are equal even if applied in a vacuum. Chemical weapons like dum dum bullets or cluster bombs are considered excessive and inhumane because they go far beyond the proportionaility required even in war. Sure, regular bullets or explosives can be just as deadly or easily used in war crimes, but chemical weapons and dum dum bullets add a whole other level of unneeded trauma. Bullet wounds and explosive wounds for the most part are pretty straight forward, chemical weapon effects are much harder to treat and most side effects are far more severe because they are manufactured with those side effects in mind, most explosives and bullets aren't. Sure an explosion could blind some people as an accidental side effect, but a chemical weapon that doesn't outright kill could permanently blind. You're talking about chance versus an engineered purpose to be more horrific.

Haighus wrote:I think the kind of chemical that is considered a "WMD" is the kind that is intrinsically hard to contain and control, and therefore inherently indiscriminate. There are loads of chemicals that are toxic that are not considered chemical weapons, and the ones that are tend to taint there area and contaminate it. I think that is the key difference. Some chemical weapons are probably erroneously considered "WMDs", which are precise and controllable, but they are usually just called poisons/toxins.

Disciple of Fate wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

I mean you do realize they could just have broken into his home at night and put one in him while he was sleeping. They had all the time in the world to conduct this assasination to avoid causing innocent people to get hurt. Yet the method they deliberatly picked had no way of avoiding innocent people, as evidenced by his daughter and others. It came down to basic luck that nobody else got seriously hurt.

How is saying you're defending the use of chemical weapons a fallacy? You do realize the international community including Russia consider the use of chemical weapons a crime? Plus there is such a thing as proportionality. This "oh I don't get why chemical weapons are such a big deal" is incredibly facetious.

I know that, but I wonder why. That is not called being facetious, that is called being curious.
The chemical was used in a very callous way. But an explosive could have been used in just such a callous way. Chemicals can also be used in a very precise way. Explosives are much harder to use precisely. Why are chemical weapons so much worse than the explosive weapons? So far no one in this thread seems to have found an answer to that yet. So that is why I think it comes down to emotion. Do you have another explanation?

Yet you don't fully understand the difference that not all weapons are equal. Even explosives get differentiated on the international stage. Certain types of explosives are also very much frowned upon if not outright banned like chemical weapons. Think of your garden variety landmine or cluster bombs. Use of those quickly edges into war crime territory due to collateral damage. A distinction is even made between bullets, dum dum bullets are also very much frowned upon and banned by the signatories of the Hague Convention.

One should not assume all weapons are equal even if applied in a vacuum. Chemical weapons like dum dum bullets or cluster bombs are considered excessive and inhumane because they go far beyond the proportionaility required even in war. Sure, regular bullets or explosives can be just as deadly or easily used in war crimes, but chemical weapons and dum dum bullets add a whole other level of unneeded trauma. Bullet wounds and explosive wounds for the most part are pretty straight forward, chemical weapon effects are much harder to treat and most side effects are far more severe because they are manufactured with those side effects in mind, most explosives and bullets aren't. Sure an explosion could blind some people as an accidental side effect, but a chemical weapon that doesn't outright kill could permanently blind. You're talking about chance versus an engineered purpose to be more horrific.

You have convinced me. I think both of these arguments together put forward a convincing explanation.

To be fair international rules on these types of weapons are patchy at best. Technically a herbicide like Agent Orange is still on the ok side to use, even though we now are fully aware of the long term side effects on people's health and new generations. Its not short term like most chemical weapons that are banned, but its as indiscriminate if not as deadly. Not surprisingly the US is mainly interested in preventing that from being enshrined into international law. But then you have weird cases like tear gas being banned in warfare but fine for domestic use, because its pretty common in riot control. Its a frustrating process.

In other news, Russia has now expelled more UK diplomats than vice versa, plus some argument about a legal/illegal search of a Russian plane. Besides expelling some more diplomats there isn't a lot to do to increase pressure. Still expect the West to wait for the OPCW, then the EU still has to work to get all its countries to agree to measures. The US might already be pretty maxed out on them I think.

I heard the plane search was made up? Is that a thing?

 Zognob Gorgoff wrote:
I heard the plane search was made up? Is that a thing?

No, its actually real, the argument is about it being legal/illegal.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43606085

No idea what the law is, but this sounds very much like the Russians trying to play the victim again:

The Border Force officers inspected the plane for up to three minutes before leaving with a "thank you", he added.
The pilot maintains they "gave no reasons" for the inspection, and he was not allowed to "observe their actions" or accompany them in their work.

I'm not sure what the legal requirement is (I'm sure a news source will have got an expert to comment within a few hours) but it sounds like they went on the plane, sniffer dog did a quick search, as happens all the time, then they got off. It seems like very routine stuff which the Russian embassy is blowing out of proportion to play the "poor persecuted Russia" game again.

This is Britain ratcheting up the threat level by waiting for the pilots to leave the plane and go down the pub for a well-earned pint, before doing routine customs checks.

Uhm... uh.... ok then

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43609505

Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has accused the UK and US of seeking to stop her country hosting this summer's World Cup.

Speaking in a lengthy interview with a Russian TV channel, she said their "main aim" was to "take the World Cup out of Russia".

The UK has been seeking to punish Russia after accusing it of mounting a nerve agent attack in Britain....

Speaking to Russia's Channel 5 TV, Ms Zakharova said: "It's my impression that all they care about is taking the World Cup out of Russia.

"They will use any means. Their minds are only on that football and God forbid it should touch a Russian football field."

So have we reached the stage Russia just accused the UK of trying to murder Skripal to prevent the World Cup from happening in Russia? Sure sounds like it.

Yep! Absolutely. And to humiliate the Russian government further the UK government have ordered NI, Scotland and Wales to snub the world cup by failing to qualify and England to turn up but put in such a pathetic display that they don’t go past the group stages! It’s like leaving a tip of a few coppers for bad service rather than no tip at all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This is Britain ratcheting up the threat level by waiting for the pilots to leave the plane and go down the pub for a well-earned pint, before doing routine customs checks.

Breaking news! Uk boarder force have asked to see visas and passports of Russians entering the UK! This humiliation of Russian citizens must end!

If an Islamic country complained about drug sniffer dogs on their planes I could at least understand it, because of their religious beliefs about dogs.
But it appears they don't.

What we are seeing is Maskirovka, throw so much gak in the air it clouds the judgement of many. However the Russian strategy has changed, first it was contempt, calling for proof while looking very guilty and blaming outrageous choices of third party such as Sweden. It was a means of saying they did it while mouthing the opposite as a bully tactic.
Now they are going full on to claim their innocence while making themselves out as the victims. That is a whole different strategy and goes to prove that the outcome is not going as expected.

Russia are doubling down on the rhetoric, but they are getting edgy, evidently they expected the UK to be abandoned by the global community, and while some rogue states are backing Russia and the EU is visibly dragging its heels, even the French eventually made statements that they believed the UK governments position and condemned Russia's alleged involvement,

The whole situation is like a bully picking on ten different kids, and then the 11th defends themselves and so the bully runs to the teacher and cries foul about how they are being picked on.

Excuse me, Russia? Get through a single presidential election without the opponents being mysteriously harmed or killed, and we'll talk about you being respected as a civilized country.

https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/979731945725857793


Russian state TV is reporting that the USA has told them the 60 odd diplomats they kicked out can in fact be replaced man for man.





https://twitter.com/OrenDorell/status/979764654787497984