Tuesday, October 18, 2016
For or against chemical warfare
During world war I chemical warfare was used regularly first by the germans and later by both sides. First, there was tear gas and later mustard gas, phosgene, and chlorine gas. Later on, these weapons got banned through the 1899 Hague Declaration Concerning Asphyxiating Gases and the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare, which stoped the use of "poison or poisoned weapons" in warfare and were not allowed in the other wars, but they allowed nukes. Should a nuke be considered a chemical weapon and banned too if it is?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It should not be considered a chemical weapon because it doesn't use chemicals or poison to kill people. It is in a different class of weapons, but it should be banned nonetheless because of it's sheer destructive power and threat it poses to the world.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh in that nukes shouldn't be considered as chemical weapons considering that they are a form of nuclear weaponry and not chemical weaponry (chemical weaponry is usually uses a lethal chemical to hurt/kill people; nuclear weaponry uses nuclear fission reactions to cause destruction). Also, I believe that even though it would be beneficial for most countries to get rid of their nuclear arsenal in order to promote peace, I highly doubt that this is a realistic expectation for today's world, let alone the early 20th century, because of how difficult it is to convince certain countries to give up their nuclear weapons. It would probably be more realistic to have countries reduce their arsenal significantly, however I don't think they can necessarily be eliminated completely. Also, the chemical weapons you refer to such as mustard gas and chlorine gas weren't suddenly banned after the war; they had been banned for over a decade, because the Hague Declaration Concerning and Asphyxiating Gases was made 15 years before the start of the war, and the Hague Convention on Land Warfare took place 7 years before the start of the war, meaning that they weren't banned "later on" after the war. The reason why countries still used the weapons even though they had already been banned was because there wasn't really any international policing force that would do punish them for breaking these agreements.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that nukes shouldn't be considered chemical weapons, but also there is already an agreement to not use nuclear warfare. This is called the No First Use Pledge. I do agree with these countries that chemical warfare should be banned due to the fact that the effects of these gasses were inhumane.
ReplyDeleteNukes should definitely have been banned, and the sooner that they were, the better. I can see from Joshua, Matthew, and Trevor's comments that nuclear weapons were not considered chemical weapons but should be banned nonetheless.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we must also consider the banning of nukes in the modern age; every country should have the right to nuclear weapons but make sure they produce them in moderation. Even though there is much controversy over nuclear weapons today, we should still be grateful that the United States owns the most nuclear weapons and is available to protect other world powers when a threat is posed.