Chemical Weapons

9/17/13

Why are chemical weapons looked down upon around the world, while other forms of weapons are accepted? In the end, the final objective when using these weapons, chemical or not, is killing people. When it comes to war; is one way of killing someone somehow more humane than another? There seem to be a couple of factors that go into determining how people perceive fighting as humane versus inhumane. There is a clear disconnect between killing people using conventional accepted methods, like guns and bombs, as opposed to chemical weapons. Either way, people are being killed, but somehow, one way is frowned upon more so than the other. But because we have become for the most part, extremely accurate at using guns and bombs to kill people, it is accepted in society. On the other hand, chemical weapons are a lot harder to aim due to the wind carrying the chemicals wherever it is blowing. This can cause serious civilization casualties which is greatly looked down upon.

First off, the people being killed normally have to be some sort of soldier themselves. Soldiers fighting soldiers seems to be fair game in terms of what is viewed as humane killing. The unspoken notion that if you're willing to fight for your country, you must be willing to die for your country. While I understand where that thought comes from, to me, there is a lapse of judgement of sorts. Instead of looking down on people being killed no matter what, as a society we allow the killing of our own people as well as of other nations if they are willing to fight for our country or theirs. What about in draft situations where the soldiers don't necessarily choose to be in the army, are they still "fair game" to being killed by war?

In the same vain, soldiers killing civilians is never humane, and is always looked down upon. Obviously, if someone is just a regular everyday citizen of the world and their country, killing them is immoral. Not only because they aren't fighting in the war, but also because they can't defend themselves. This is a major factor as to why chemical weapons are so looked down upon around the world. Chemical weapons are indiscriminate - They don't care who they hit, the chemicals just flow with the wind, harming anything and everything they come in contact with.

Overall, I think that the main factor for how society views killing and wars has to do with the ability to defend oneself. If a soldier kills a civilian, there is an outrage because the civilian probably doesn't have the means to defend against the attack. Another reason could also be because the civilian isn't even fighting in the war at all, they are normally just an innocent bystander of that country. Obviously they probably support their country winning the war, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should be killed while they are still defenseless. This brings us to World War II, a perfect example of civilians being killed. One of the biggest reasons Hitler was looked down upon so much was because he was targeting, for the most part, a group of civilians who could not defend themselves. Most of the people Hitler targeted (gays, Jews, etc.) were just regular citizens of a variety of countries with no means to fight or defend themselves, while Germany had a very strong, capable army. This is viewed as inhumane, or immoral and will cause an uproar in society if it were to happen today, just like it eventually did during World War II. Due to this idea that defenseless people are not fair game for killing in war, chemical weapons are viewed in the same way because they are not reliably able to target only a specific area, and hit only their target, they are "banned' from combat.

"War... War never changes." (Fallout 3)