It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by myselfaswell
There is however a difference in the manner of the attack insomuch that the numbers of victims can be amassed much quicker with less effort.
Originally posted by tetra50
reply to post by James1982
I'll tell you why, as one old enough, perhaps, to remember what it may, and I say "MAY" have been like in the perpetual shelling of Berlin and London, during WWII.....
In those days, you heard the planes. And even if you didn't, they had radar and an alarm system set up: ever heard a bomb alert from those days? So you had a "chance," a slim one, albeit, to get somewhere, under the piano in the living room, a bomb shelter if you were lucky enough to have one, etc......
Think, for a second, about the reality, of being under fire…quite simply.
Now, after you've imagined that, imagine a chemical being set off in a soundless, small, hissing bomb.......but the gasses that are emitted, almost silently, and there are a plethora of other ways this could happen other than a bomb......and even more silent, and creepingly killing.......what you thought was fog rising from the river beside the subway, etc., is, in fact, a gas, that once you breathe it and start choking and bleeding from the lungs, clogging your every attempt, thereafter, to breathe, doubling you over, so that you cannot run from that "fog," for you cannot draw enough breath to escape it and get to somehwere you don't see that "mist," and then lay there in the street, bleeding from your lungs, unable even to cry out, nor move......
sorry for the graphic explanation……but do you get it, now???
Sincerely,
Tetra50
Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by tetra50
Technically there should be no distinction as horrific as it may seem. Oddly enough I think it comes down to leveling the playing field in war because I see no difference of a bus full of children being blown up with some IED versus nerve gas. Even more horrible to say that when you do use a gas you keep the infrastructure in tact...we use depleted uranium that has a far longer and slow killing effect from our warthogs so it does bring up an interesting and certainly legitimate question...
War is war and you simply just can't pretty it up...the outcome will always be death but one may be quicker than the other..and more cost effective..
Guess we could compare it to someone on death row...hanging or lethal injection...most people would say lethal injection because it seems like a more humane way to die but when you get down to it they both suck...edit on 4-9-2013 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by chrismarco
reply to post by tetra50
Technically there should be no distinction as horrific as it may seem. Oddly enough I think it comes down to leveling the playing field in war because I see no difference of a bus full of children being blown up with some IED versus nerve gas. Even more horrible to say that when you do use a gas you keep the infrastructure in tact...we use depleted uranium that has a far longer and slow killing effect from our warthogs so it does bring up an interesting and certainly legitimate question...
War is war and you simply just can't pretty it up...the outcome will always be death but one may be quicker than the other..and more cost effective..
Guess we could compare it to someone on death row...hanging or lethal injection...most people would say lethal injection because it seems like a more humane way to die but when you get down to it they both suck...edit on 4-9-2013 by chrismarco because: (no reason given)
Guess we could compare it to someone on death row...hanging or lethal injection...most people would say lethal injection because it seems like a more humane way to die but when you get down to it they both suck...
Originally posted by defcon5
Again folks, look at why land-mining is also considered banned in modern warfare for the answer here.
Wars are meant to be fought on a battlefield with the civilians out of harms way as much as possible. Weapons are made to be accurate to prevent collateral civilian deaths. All the weapons that are “banned” in modern warfare of of the type that kill indiscriminately, and have a high probability of creating unnecessary mass civilian casualties.
Chemical weapons were invented in WWI (biological goes back to the dark ages at the very least), but in WWI the use of chemical weapons was limited to the “no mans land” between the trenches of the soldiers. In modern times as the battles moved in closer to civilian populations the use of such weapons became outlawed in the rules of warfare.