Tell me again, why are chemical weapons so awful?

It’s bad enough that a nation’s youth wind up fighting (and dying in) the wars their elitist “leaders” start and then sit back and watch from a comfortable chair with servants bringing them refreshments. But what’s with all this WMD whoop-de-do?

Nukes I can see. Yep, you could do a real mass number on a whole city that way. Nagasaki, for instance. Also biologicals, perhaps, though they would be somewhat easier to contain the swifter you could plan, manufacture and deploy preventative pharmaceuticals.

But chemicals? They’re called “gas,” apparently to scare civilians and save lazy journalists an extra sentence or two, but they’re usually heavier-than-air and so not at all easy to disperse, even in a crowded subway car. The Tokyo sarin attacks in ’95, were bad enough, but still managed to kill only thirteen, and permanently injure about fifty, and that was on several cars.

And, when you get down to the nitty-gritty, except for the inevitable bowel voiding and vomiting, chemicals leave a pretty nice corpse for the loved ones to gather round before the planting—much nicer than a pile of steaming offal, which would be the result of even an incompetent machinegunning inside that aforementioned subway car.

But, somehow, machineguns escaped the WMD label. Pure twaddle.

5 responses to “Tell me again, why are chemical weapons so awful?

  1. Bingo. A post on the subject is almost ready on my side. Probably tomorrow.

    • Well, I know where you stand. Or stood. Just tell me why machinguns are not considered WMD, especially in this age when they are no longer confined to the battlefield. Their close cousin, the automatic rifle, is now often seen on the streets of cities.

  2. Why, do you expect me to argue against your (completely valid) point? The gassing just deflects the attention from the 100,000+ killed so far.

  3. P.S. That latest shooting on a Navy base. Again a military installation with no one carrying… it is a disgrace, simply unconscionable. That in a country full of weaponry to the gills. And not one with a long gun to protect the unarmed…

  4. I noticed but have not taken time to read the Navy base shooting details. But Shore Patrol, as they call their MPs, always carry sidearms. Guess none of them were around at the time.