In light of recent news in regards to the massacre in Syria on August 21st, 2013, where chemical weapons were used to kill more than 1,300 people, I want to ask why you think the use of chemical weapons in warfare is prohibited, but nuclear warheads are not? (I understand that there is a gray area when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons in war, but according to the U.N. Charter, nuclear weapons are legal in self defense) There are obviously arguments for both sides of this discussion, and while some people may think the answer is a no brainer, I ask you to hear the reasoning why I proposed this question. (http://www.un.org/)
The 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons in war. The image below depicts a picture of the recent Syrian massacre where the the chemical bombs hit.
According to eye witness reports, eight bombs struck the ground and as you can see in the picture, the blast radius's are about a mile wide in all locations but one. While there is no doubt on the devastating effects from this attack, it becomes hard to see why weapons such as these are prohibited in warfare while Nuclear warheads are not.
This image shows what the blast radius would look like if a nuclear bomb was dropped in the heart of London. It is obvious the kind of complete destruction that this would cause from just one bomb. According to the facts, a bomb this size would cause fatalities up to 20.51 miles away and injuries as far as 47.88 miles away in every direction from the drop zone.
When comparing the devastating effects from each of these bombs, it becomes evident that a nuclear warhead is significantly more devastating, and yet it is chemical warfare that is prohibited. It is clear that the damage that each of these bombs causes is different, but deaths are deaths whether there is a body to clean up or not.
Why, it is fair to ask, does the killing of 100,000 or more with conventional weapons elicit little more than a concerned shrug, while the killing of a relative few from poison gas is enough to trigger an intervention?
This quote from an article from the New York Times reiterates my question for debate. Having seen the power that each of these bombs are capable of, I ask, why do you think the use of chemical weapons in warfare remains prohibited, but nuclear warheads are not.
This was a very interesting post, and your question is a logical one. However, in accordance to the discussion we had in class today about alliances, I think alliances could be a possible answer to this question. It is difficult to understand why the use of chemical weapons is prohibited and the use of nuclear weapons is not, but it may be perhaps, that any state in their right mind would understand the effects a nuclear attack would have across the globe. With so many alliances reaching across all continents in today's world, if a leader were to pursue a nuclear attack, there would be serious repercussions including more nuclear strikes. I believe organizations such as the UN think that the prohibition of nuclear weapons simply does not need to be enforced due to the fact that the nuclear technology that enough countries possess would literally destroy the earth. On the other hand, the sanction against the use of chemical weapons may correlate to the type of suffering chemical weapons produce. If a nuclear bomb was dropped, the people in it's immediate radius would be killed instantly if not very quickly, whereas if chemical weapons were used, the suffering would be much greater before death. You do raise a great question, though.
ReplyDeleteI think the answer to your question lies in the intended purpose of each of these weapons. The acquirement of nuclear weapons is a tool for countries to use as a means of deterrence and self-protection. Although this strategy can quickly escalate into a nuclear arms race between nations, the probability of these weapons beings used as a means of attack is extremely slim as the destructive capabilities are enormous (as Sage already mentioned). In fact, the only time nuclear weapons have been used was when the US utilized the atomic bomb during World War II and destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with the intention of forcing Japan to surrender. Chemical warfare, on the hand, has occurred multiple times throughout history: American use of herbicides and tear gas in Vietnam, Iraq using various gases to kill Kurds within the nation, the Assad regime attacking civilians as of late, among others. Therefore, the use of chemical weapons is one form of warfare that the world at large seems to have rejected due to it's ghastly nature and the relative ease at which a nation can acquire them. So although nuclear weapons are much more destructive than chemical ones, the relatively low probability of them ever being used again shifts the international focus on the eradication and prohibition of chemical weapons instead.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both of the above posts, that nuclear weapons acting as their own deterrent are an important part in explaining their acceptability over chemical weapons. As Elizabeth mentioned, we have seen the use of chemical weapons by dictators and oppressive regimes unto their own people, committing human rights violations and being used as a tool to quiet dissent within their own countries. I think because of this, we culturally associate chemical weapons with their unjust domestic use in these types of regimes (despite the use by the United States in previous conflicts). Another important consideration is that those nations with the largest nuclear weapons stockpiles are the ones who get to set the agenda, and have the most leverage and power internationally. These factors can begin to explain why nuclear weapons are permitted, while chemical weapons are not, and suggest that logic is not the most crucial tool to understand this phenomenon.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the way you wrote this article Patric in that you are really striving to have the reader express his or her view on the subject. I believe there are a couple points that explain why chemical weapons are prohibited in warfare and not nuclear weapons. First, while nuclear bombs do cause a devastating number of casualties, it's important to know that they're considered a 'bloodless' weapon. Everything within 20 miles turns to ash. Most chemical weapons "act mainly on the body's autonomic nervous system — the body's involuntary nervous system — which controls things such as heart rate, respiratory rate, salivation, digestion, pupil dilation, and urination." Most impose slow, painful, and inhumane effects on their victims. Also due to the fact that nuclear weapons are so devastating, heavy repercussions would be seen whenever one of these bombs is detonated. It's a rarely crossed "red line" while on the flip side, chemical weapons have been used in pretty much every type of conflict from interstate wars, to terrorist attacks, to individuals. Since they're such a common occurrence and do such horrific things to their victims, I agree with the U.N Charters view on them. Hypothetically speaking if I had to die from either a nuclear bomb or a chemical weapon, I'd choose the nuclear bomb in a heart beat.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good post and I agree that it contradicts moral reasoning to make chemical weapons illegal while still allowing nuclear weapons, given the vast difference in destruction and loss of human life. However, when the world got together at the Geneva convention in 1925 to ban chemical weapons from future wars, it was because they are very, very bad. By their nature they are very good at killing large amounts of civilians but are rather ineffective regarding the accomplishment of military goals. I know that the same can be said about nuclear weapons, but the effects of chemical weapons are particularly disturbing. Hitler, who systematically killed millions of people, refused to use chemical weapons on his enemies because he knew firsthand how horrible they are from his experiences in the trenches of WWI. Furthermore, I agree with the above comments. There is a mutual assured destruction aspect with nuclear weapons that makes them unacceptable for anyone to use in a total war situation. I'm thinking of the movie Dr. Strangelove as I write this, great film you guys should watch it.
ReplyDeleteThis post is an extremely interesting one and something that can always be interesting to discuss. As many of the other comments have mentioned I think that the difference hinges on two main differences between the weapons (my opinion isn't one that would agree with the use of either type weapon though). As Dylan said nuclear bombs are considered to be bloodless or in other words anyone within a certain radius is killed instantly, while chemical weapons slowly attack the body and take longer to kill people. A large part of the debate over what weapons are permissible in conflict deals with indiscriminate killing and chemical weapons are just that weapon. Another significant difference is the scale of a nuclear attack would almost in every case, no matter the situation, prompt a response from any number of world powers on a scale that we most likely don't want to imagine. Nuclear weapons are largely a deterrent and which sets them apart from chemical weapons as well. But again, I enjoyed reading this article and the comments following it, as this topic is obviously quite relevant.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all the posts, but I think one of the reason chemical and biological weapons are banned are because they create a prolonged suffering and at times does not immediately kill those that are exposed to the chemical. Therefore, these people can at times suffer for extended periods of time as the chemicals slowly destroy the human body.This could also be linked to WWI and WWII because often chemical weapons were seen as inhumane and there are multiple incidents of chemical weapons being used, whereas nuclear weapons have only two instances. In this respect, it is chemical weapons are restricted because they have a higher correlation with conflict than nuclear weapons (at least historically).
ReplyDeleteAnother reason nuclear weapons are possibly not restricted are because a majority of the most powerful and influential countries within the UN have nuclear capabilities, and believe nuclear weapons allow for deterrence. For example, the US, China, United Kingdom, France, and Russia Federation all have nuclear weapons and are permanent members on the UN Security Council. Thus, it is unlikely that any of these countries want to reduce or eliminate their military power. So politically, it seems to suggest that these nations want to maintain their power.
I agree. I think nuclear weapons are not prohibited because they are used as a deterrent in war. The above posts all make strong claims about this difference between nukes and chemical warfare. I also think that because of the spread of technology concerning nuclear ware fare, prohibiting their existence could backfire if the technology fell into the wrong hands. It would be difficult to ensure that no country or organization obtained nuclear weapons, and more difficult to deter their use without the nukes. The main reason is because chemical weapons are not used as a deterrent.
ReplyDeleteThis is such a good question. Especially with recent events, I have been wondering how nuclear weapons are not as much of a concern. However, as many people have already brought up, it's about how the weapons are being used. As most above me have said,nuclear weapons are a means of strategic defense. I feel the reason chemical weapons have been such a hot topic lately is because of the victims. If Syria had attacked another country with these weapons, it would perhaps be viewed as more justifiable. Although we would view that event just as unacceptable, the use of chemical weapons on domestic civilians is what is tugging at our heart strings the most.
ReplyDeleteI think it is important to note that these policies, on which weaponry is legal vs illegal, are created by the hegemonies of the world, who already are in possession of nuclear weapons. If all states were to have an equal say in the UN resolutions regarding nuclear weapons, we would likely see a different outcome regarding nukes. The reason nuclear weapons are not illegal while chemical weapons are, is that if some non-state organization or rebellious state who refused to sign the agreement, it would create large security problems for the states who did comply. With chemical weapons, while they are extremely dangerous and harmful to the population it is used on, it does not assure mutually assured destruction if they are to be used. Furthermore, hegemonies have already experimented with widespread use of chemical weapons, in World War I/II and the Vietnam War, and witnessed the devastation it creates. It took widespread use and devastation from chemical weapons before they were declared illegal internationally, one can only hope that we do not have to experience large scale nuclear warfare for the international community to come to a consensus that nobody should have nuclear weapons.
ReplyDeleteNuclear weapons are used as a deterrent and a way to show how much "power" you have as a military. Also, the use of nuclear weapons is so devastating, that it is illogical to use nuclear weapons. Dropping a nuclear weapon on an area can cause not only human casualties, but cause ecological consequences for hundreds of years. Also, there is a very narrow amount of nations that have nuclear weapon capabilities, and countries that are trying to develop nuclear weapons are being sanctioned by the international community for the most part. So the limited amount of nuclear weapons and the international norm that is held in the countries that have nuclear capabilities makes having a law on the use of nuclear weapons arguably unnecessary.
ReplyDeleteAlthough it sounds morbid, I do feel that nuclear weapons should be legally authorized for use in a self-defense situation because of their strategic capabilities. Nuclear weapons help assure the power of deterrence against militarized conflict. However, due to their devastating power, it is unlikely that they would be used. The smaller attack radius of chemical weapons makes it more likely that they would be used if they weren't illegal. I feel that the international system recognizes this discrepancy, and this is why they're illegal.
ReplyDelete