Chemical weapons are good

> Areas that are affected by this are not destroyed unlike conventional explosions.
> Affective vs larger area therefore requires less support and equipment
> Bodies are not ripped to shreds so it's easier to identify and count
What's wrong with using chemical weapons?

Other urls found in this thread:

liveleak.com/view?i=604_1491329770
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Nothing apart from hurt fee-fees.

iit's an exceptionally painful way to die, compared to regular ballistics

>Delousing is bad

Literally nothing.

yeah the liveleak vid of the people heaving as foam and lung fluids streamed out their nose and mouths (children too, some were blonde) was p fucked up. i'd rather they had just been blown up.

wtf I love war crimes now!

Oh yeah I forgot how pleasant dying of exsanguination from having your jaw blown off is hunky dory. Fuck off, war is hell, always has been. The only reason chemical weapons haven't supplanted conventional weaponry is that people were traumatized by it in WWI.

I wouldn't want to die to gas. At the same time it's much more ethical than bombing a city to the ground or using nukes.

>war crimes

Oxymoron. There is no such thing, just a bunch of arbitrary "rules" that can and will be ignored by anyone in a serious war fighting for their lives/country/freedom.

I'd much rather spend the last ten minutes of life in a state of denial while stuffing my intestines back into my flayed body cavity than suffocating with flaming lungs and liquified eye balls.

Funny how Hitelr never used wmds and the west are the ones whining about others using them now

Is that a traffic light?

>
>yeah the liveleak vid of the people heaving as foam and lung fluids streamed out their nose and mouths (children too, some were blonde) was p fucked up. i'd rather they had just been blown up.
Death is death. Some say suffering is good for your sins. God apparently likes it.
Also....what if we create chemicals that would not cause suffering.
> Spray entire city and everyone goes to sleep. Permanent sleep.

Oh really ? Let's ask our people on the ground about that !

i don't know if it's ethical considering

>you cannot see it coming
>exceptionally painful to die by, every single time, no exceptions
>kills slowly

The conventional problem isn't the pain or any of that garbage, it's that you can't hit a target, the civilians. And seeing as they are so easy to get that Syria has some, Western nations are/were afraid of their own population centers getting hit. Of course, with modern day demographics being what they are, just drop some on every city for all I care.

War Crimes are a White thing. Only Whites have the decency to say "ok this thing sucks let's agree not to do it to each other."

Remember the British used to fight like real life chess, lining up and marching at each other until one side was too depleted to continue. There was no concept of guerilla warfare or 'cheating' as they would have called it.

If someone commits a war crime, they're basically marking themselves out as deserving of retribution. The Russians for example deserved their own holocaust for their treatment of German civvies. Just like the Japs deserved the nukes for behaving like demons when it came to treating prisoners.

yeah, that looks bad, but those people were dead instantly you stupid german. you are a disgrace to your heritage

This. If they were more effective, maybe they would be a little less barbaric.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSS

Sarin stops you from breathing

No worst than getting shot or blown up

Chlorine and mustard gas do the shitty stuff

Why did the guys who actually experienced that shit in a war want to ban it? Really makes you think.

liveleak.com/view?i=604_1491329770

you stupid race-mixed abo-bogan sub-human hybrid filth

i want to gas you so hard

Because it's a very easy way to kill everyone in a zone just like nuclear weapons.

Yes, and it shows them struggling to breathe.

That's Sarin.

Again, no worst than getting a bullet through your lung -- good chance of dying either way depending on dosage and what bullet.

they are indiscriminate. its understood that if possible women children and non combatants fleeing wont be harmed.

>Because it's a very easy way to kill everyone in a zone just like nuclear weapons.

So by being being very good at killing many is bad because we too good at killing many? Circular logic it seems.

That's not the conclusive evidence you think it is.

link?

Be assad, be winning, got Russia to be airforce, and have spetsnaz helping too. We are pushing isis back. Now trump in office, he hate isis too, maybe he help me take back country from terrorists.

>So why would he use chemical weapons 2 days before a important Syrian talk with russia, etc?

Makes no sense, if you're winning you dont do this.

>They tried framing him twice for the other chemcial attacks, and those stories disappeared from the MSM after they found out isis used it, not Assad.

Be smart pol, no proof. Only helps isis, and radical islamists.

A
Based
Leaf?

>as foam and lung fluids streamed out their nose and mouths

That's Chlorine Gas.

Says the jap.

Whats even the point of chemical weapons other than giving NATO excuses to invade?

Like why not just use regular bombs?

I would imagine its much harder to predict collateral damage compared to conventional boom booms

Sounds like we need to drop another nuke on Hiroshima just in case you thought we're fucking sorry!

it makes war less profitable

I meant that you could lay waste to a city by dumping a couple tons of the stuff. They're really dangerous weapons just like nuclear ones.

this is the most random meme arrow placement i've ever seen

agree with what you are saying tho

Everybody wants to use nerve gas against terrorists, but nobody wants to take the blame for it because it is taboo. Nerve gas is the perfect weapon to use against vermin like muslim jihadists.

>Again, no worst than getting a bullet through your lung
If it is no worse then should you be able to buy Sarin nades at a store?

>people heaving as foam and lung fluids streamed out their nose and mouths (children too, some were blonde)

Can you sauce me bro? I needz it bad.

except, it's like getting a bullet through your lung, every single time, no exceptions.

the amount of suffering created vs ballistic weapons is greater

ballistic weapons

>center
dead
>mid center
mostly dead
>preferie
wounded/dead/dying/uninjured
>medical intervention more effective

chemical

>center
slow death by asphyxiation
>mid range
>slow death by asphyxiation
>periferie
various doses of gas, various levels of slow death by asphyxiation
>medical intervention not as effective

every single time. ballistic weapons are much more ethical to human life, than chemical, unless you can create a gas that will kill as fast as a shock-wave created by an explosion

yeah getting your legs blown off by a bomb and dying of infection is much more humane

>> Areas that are affected by this are not destroyed unlike conventional explosions.
And this was from a fucking herbicide. Chemical weapon fucks environment (where people live) more then conventional weapons.

...

Former conventional bombing voter here. It's hilarious watching bombs crash and burn but in all seriousness we can't let bombs get the nuclear codes.

To be honest when it comes to it, it's not all that different bombing a civvie target with standard artillery than with a chemweapon loaded with say for example Sarine gas. The problem is that a chemical weapon can be a variety of things, and I'm guessing you could potentially spread all sorts of terrible shit, so ban all to be sure.

We use depleted uranium right now.
*spoiler* it causes birth defects as well *spoiler*

Wonderful point my friend. I support -%

Double satanic trips

i disagree with your war ethics but nice digits faggot

The better comparison is HE, and that's what I should have used.

There's zero ethical difference between HE (bombs) and gas; a bomb dropped on or nearby a building will cause just as much suffering and death as a shell containing Sarin.

Whilst death asphyxiation sucks, do does every other way on the battlefield.

The reason why it's "banned" is because of improved mechanisms of deployment by major powers. Instead of say, 50 people dying from a couple of rockets, hundreds of thousands could.

awww ur fee fee hurt

That is because he did nothing wrong.

I know, America is being run by satanic pedophiles that get of on killing people and seeing kids with birth defect.

>inb4 they are just kebabs
Well they also use it for target practice in the pacific. They don't care if the kid with the birth defect is a burger or kebab.

>There's zero ethical difference between HE (bombs) and gas; a bomb dropped on or nearby a building will cause just as much suffering and death as a shell containing Sarin.

m8 nerve gas wafts into every nook and cranny and kills people in bunkers, tunnels trenches.

If nerve gas was actually deployed against terrorists in a city, it would kill everyone in the city. hundreds of thousands of people.

based leaf

This. What does Assad have to gain from doing this? I smell bullshit and a rat

>There's zero ethical difference between HE (bombs) and gas; a bomb dropped on or nearby a building will cause just as much suffering and death as a shell containing Sarin.
Yeah there is, you aim the HE shell and it goes boom and that's that. With the C shell the winds might change and it blows away right into a suburb a km away.

no faggot you're thinking that scene in prince of egypt with the dead kids

Its mostly because its considered inhumane. If you use a bomb, there is a good chance that the enemy will die instantly; and if they don't, oh well. Chemical weapons by their nature cause prolonged suffering in victims, and are extremely painful. Iirc, they cause all your neurons to fire at once so that you are in extreme pain and your system overloads. Or that might just be nerve gasses
TL:DR they are very painful and inhumane.

War crimes is meme created by the USA.
It goes like this.
Shoot innocent people in the head?
That's okay! You didn't gas em.
Use gas on actual terrorist?
War crime, War crime!!
Except most of the time the idiots at the us gov can't even follow their own rules and have to punish themselves for war crimes. As you can expect they are very inconsistent and usually USA gets away with it. The only time they don't is when someone they don't like does a "war crime" so they can have an excuse to get rid of them. In short war crimes are only enforced when it's good for Israel. When Israel commits a war crime?
Never hear about it again.

We were warned there would be a false flag soon.

Trump backtracked and is now anti-Assad

Trump is zionist Israel puppet

Israel wants Assad gone

Trump will use this as an excuse to intervene, leading us to war with Russia

We're literally gonna die defending ISIS from our allies

>Remember the British used to fight like real life chess, lining up and marching at each other until one side was too depleted to continue.
Because a highly disciplined infantry square was basically unbeatable by and the only way to keep unit cohesion against cavalry and charges from other dense formations was to stay in a dense formation yourself. That you got rekt by artillery was just something you had to deal with because having everyone running away and getting cut down by cavalry was worse.


>There was no concept of guerilla warfare or 'cheating' as they would have called it.
Yeah there was, the problem was the weapons didn't have that much range and they would just go and fuck up your village if you did shit like that.

Cmon edgelord, you havent gone through cbrne training? Riot ctrl tear gas isnt even lethal, but its still miserable to be around

explosive weaponry, by how it functions, is much more ehtical than chemical attacks

>radius
charge can be precisely measured for precise attacks depending on what blast radius you want. blast radius is far more of a clear line, than chemical weapon radius.
>accuracy of ballistics vs chemical
it's easier to avoid collateral damage with ballistics vs chemical, just by virtue of the nature of the weapon system. gas wafts around, chemicals coat things, wind blows those things around. wind cannot blow around an explosion which is over within a millisecond.
>explosives are over in a second, chemicals stay for minutes/hours/years

>Trump is zionist Israel puppet

Always has been. The donald shills conveniently ignored this fact throughout the whole election

Except we also walked across no mans land in WW1.

>human

>Except we also walked across no mans land in WW1.
Because you lost all your veterans and just threw a bunch of untrained soldiers that didn't know anything and the generals thought the germans would be all dead after a massive artillery barrage.

>he can see a missile or bomb coming
Hi Spiderman.

it's the difference between sitting there staring at thin air then slowly asphyxiating without warning

and getting blown up, or being on the edge of the blast radius of getting blown up, earing the explosion, and leaving, vs gas where you wouldn't hear anything, no warning, just asphyxiation

the problem with chemical weapons is three fold. for starters chemical weapons are not 100% lethal, but even i the most tiny of doses they can cause long term health problems (especially nerve gas). Baring the obvious cases of people loosing large chunks of their bodies, ballistics like shrapnel are easy to recover from and most of the time lead to no long term health problems

the second problem with using chemical weapons is the fact they are very hard to control once dispersed. Once a chemical weapon has been detonated there is no way of controlling were the chemicals were go. A strong would could pick up and gas the town a mile down the road instead of the military target you were trying to hit. They cause a lot of collateral damage which is something people generally try to reduce


third problem is the fact that chemical weapons are really only effective against soft targets and civilians. military targets are already equipped to handle chemical attacks (your average gi has a mask) so the only people these chemicals will effect are civilians. You basically have to admit you are trying to just kill mass amounts of civilians if you use these weapons.

fear my triple doubles, you fucking pleb

kek smiles upon me

can you say the same?

you are able to sum it up far better than i ever could

and are more knowledgeable

good post

oh come on we all know what the best weapon is.

imagine death by one of these.
It's like a light switch. There, and gone. No transition. It's fucking beautiful. I have the weirdest boner right now.

except if you are outside the instant death range of the ordnance and still get pelted with neutron beams

pic related, this guy suffered an accident at a nuclear power plant were the radiations completely obliterated his chromosomes, he was kept alive for 3 months while is body literally disintegrated

>Ouchi was kept alive over a period of 3 months as his skin blackened and blistered and began to sluice off his body. His internal organs failed and he lost a jaw-dropping 20 litres of bodily fluids a day. I'm happy to say, he was kept in a medical coma for most of this time.

If you replace 'chemical weapons' with 'drone strikes', there is literally no difference.

except that drones strikes are precision strikes used against hard targets most of the time that have little to no collateral damage. They also leave little to no impact on the environment and ecosystem.

ya they fuck them up sometimes, war intelligence and all, but your never going to encounter a situation were you are drones leveling entire towns filled with nothing but civilians.

Because a strong wind will cause a missile to hit the wrong town

Ya ok bud

>walk outside
>see that a chemical weapons attack has occurred
>approach each victim and pull their pants down

>areas that are affected by this are not destroyed
>the most valuable capital is humans

Nobody to man the oil fields if we let this guy gas all the people manning ISIS-turkey oil routes. People are cheaper than steel over there nip, the infrastructure is based around a bunch of shitskins driving trucks.

t. former shitskin

...

>what's wrong with using chemical weapons

how about the shit is so frightening that even Hitler wouldn't dare use the shit.

haha fucking chinks had it coming

gives Jews PTSD

the united states has conducted over 500 strikes killing around 2500 combatants

1.) cherry picked examples are cherry picked, i already admitted mistakes happen

2.) do you understand how sucessfull it is to kill 2500 using 500 strikes? Imagine how many people the united states killed during a single bombing raid in WW2 and multiply that by 500. Drone strikes are under ethical analysis, but noone can deny how effective they are at minimizing collateral damage.

You guys forgot the best part about drone strikes - it makes more new drone strike targets.

...

rekt

>he lost a jaw-dropping 20 litres of bodily fluids a day

No, thermal radiation and blast are the killers. Initial radiation from those weapons is not important at all, as you will be killed by heat and blast even outside of the lethal radiation zone.

Fallout is a different topic but since all modern nuclear weapons are true thermonuclear devices with very high efficiency and most of their yield comes from fusion, fallout is not that scary as it was in earlier weapon designs.

Yeah, what you say is true, but to have an international outrage over a chemical weapons attack seems like saying "you didn't commit horrendous acts of murder the way I wanted you to". What the fuck do people think happens during war? Obviously a chemical weapons attack is a heinous act, but beyond that it's all fake outrage to justify further war mongering.

yup, in modern thermonuclear devices the "deadly neutron radiation zone" is well within the radius of the explosion fireball.

Look fine to me, what's your problem?

war crimes are defined by powerful nations who have an overwhelming advantage in conventional weapon production

killings killing, wars war, it's just about keeping the little guy down

>Ouchi

Weapons of mass destruction are banned for a reason: you can't always control who you kill with them.
You can control where a bullet flies or where a rocket lands. Good luck controlling the wind (chemicals, fallout) or infection vectors though.

Besides, wars have totally lost their meaning by the way. Why were wars fought before? Resources, raw materials, more comfy places to live. Nowadays we have the technology to trade quickly and efficiently and to overcome quite a lot of natural things which used to cause discomfort (e.g. cold).

Make no mistake: modern warfare is a business - the biggest one in fact- and a tool of destabilization, with no goals other than the war itself. All sorts of weapons are pouring off from conveyor belts by thousands every minute, and they have to be fired so there is a constant need for consumables (bullets, maintenance equipment, etc). All it takes is a false flag attack and bam, your warehouse is empty.

Of course, wars have casualties. Hate to state the obvious, but pharmaceutical companies (aka the 2nd largest industry) need ill people so they can """cure""" them.
Remember the false flag attack? If only there were diseases which require multiple kinds of expensive medication & equipment to cure...

This is what you are - a living target and a lab rat.