Support NeoGAF

[Shadowhelper]

I can't help but to wonder if this whole thing was premeditated by Russia and Trump inner-circle to create the illusion of conflict between Russia/Putin and Trump...

This seems obvious. Trump is being investigated for his ties to Russia, what better way than to show this is not true through distracting people through a military action supposedly aimed at Russia.

If this is not collusion, who warned the Syrian Army to evacuate before American missles landed? They were warned, and left with equipment. So Russia knew. How could Russia know? Like every other person in the admin seems to have deep secret ties to Russia.

The situation won't spiral out of control because I don't think it's a true conflict, just going to use the Syrian people as canon fodder for his own political ambitions. Trump is not opposing Russia. This is just a sham, so far.

 

[spineduke]

Nobody thinks it's weird how Assad uses chemicals now, after the previous backlash, in a seemingly random attack, and the U.S bombs the fuck out of that ass just like that.

It all feels a bit.... planned. I don't ride conspiracy theories fyi.

These aren't the only two chemical attacks that happened in Syria, but when it's at this scale, the only side that has the means to deploy such payloads is clear.

 

[Jackpot]

Nobody thinks it's weird how Assad uses chemicals now, after the previous backlash, in a seemingly random attack, and the U.S bombs the fuck out of that ass just like that.

It all feels a bit.... planned. I don't ride conspiracy theories fyi.

3 independent agencies concluded it was sarin gas deployed by Assad forces. Get out of here with that ridiculous false flag crap.

 

[JuanLatino]

america send hussein the pieces to build chemical weapons due the weapon embargo and they knew about the use of poisan gas used in the war

conspiracy?? No
yes it was, until the cia opened their files in 2013/14

man man those conspiracy theories...

 

[elrechazado]

america send hussein the pieces to build chemical weapons due the weapon embargo and they knew about the use of poisan gas used in the war

conspiracy?? No
yes it was, until the cia opened their files in 2013/14

man man those conspiracy theories...

Did you mean to reply to me? Because nothing you said had anything to do with my post.

 

[Emperor_Uriel]

Agent orange.

Coincidentally, this is also Russia's codename for Trump.

 

[Pbae]

I don't quite understand.

Doesn't the president still need permission to attack Syrian air strips since we're not technically at war with Syria, just hostile.

Seems like executive over reach of power. Especially for a president with the demeanor of 5 year old.

 

[Chumley]

I don't think anyone is arguing or downplaying the effects of chemical weapons. Ultimately though one group of victims is being valued while the other one is devalued. You didn't see an international outrage over the high death toll from the western coalition in Iraq/Syria the past few months and even worse Yemen with regard to SA/UAE/US/UK (and other countries at a lesser level). In the end it's as you say, people further their own agenda(like now while there's still an investigation going on) which ultimately doesn't help those who are dead or the ppl related to them. Just like the mass family burial in Mosul no ones gonna give shit about the victims of this attack. The only difference is that killing done by the "bad side" from a western perspective gets condemned and that people are pointing out that the hypocrisy stinks. Not that conventional weapons are better or worse at killing than chemical weapons

It's not about certain lives having value over others. It's about the specific weapon being used. Once you normalize it (which not responding yet again would have done) and destroy the rule that's been in place since WW1, it starts getting used more often, and then we're truly fucked. You do not want to live in a world where Sarin is being used like bombs are, the reasons are too many to count but you really need to read up on WW1 history.

 

[thefro]

What we have is a reactionary, short sighted leadership in the US that is going to make the big mistakes that will lead to even bigger ones. Obama made mistakes, but he navigated the almost impossibly complex situation skillfully. This administration shows no aptitude for any of that.

Obama didn't care if he looked "bad" to some people. He still got Russia/Syria to dispose of a lot of their chemical weapons stockpiles without firing a shot (although apparently the Syrian regime kept some/made more).

 

[JuanLatino]

Did you mean to reply to me? Because nothing you said had anything to do with my post.

ah no not really, my bad

 

[SomTervo]

Please stop with these disingenuous misuse of terms. Those are not chemical weapons by any accepted definition. Lest anyone accuse me of carrying water for the US, I am also not saying they are fine to use. See above on agent Orange, and depleted uranium is certainly not a chemical weapon.

You're using an argument of arbitrary definition. "Agent Orange isn't one of Geneva's banned chemical weapons so it doesn't count."

That doesn't mean it wasn't a chemical weapon. The ends define the means. It killed and ruined the lives of millions. The US fired a gun that they hadn't tested or evaluated properly and it had giant, far-reaching effects.

 

[pa22word]

I don't quite understand.

Doesn't the president still need permission to attack Syrian air strips since we're not technically at war with Syria, just hostile.

Seems like executive over reach of power. Especially for a president with the demeanor of 5 year old.

Short answer: no

Long answer: no one really knows, and Congress isn't going to test the issue over some air base in Syria right after a chem attack on civis. Especially not with a united government.

 

[mercenar1e]

70 million in cruise missiles doesn't go far if this drone footage is accurate.

https://twitter.com/conflicts/status/850294919306633216

the Russians are saying only 23 landed in the airfield and the rest missed by a large distance lol

 

[elrechazado]

I don't quite understand.

Doesn't the president still need permission to attack Syrian air strips since we're not technically at war with Syria, just hostile.

Seems like executive over reach of power. Especially for a president with the demeanor of 5 year old.

Welcome to the last 7-8 decades of Republicans caring about executive power when Democrats are using it and vice versa. If you are concerned about executive power to lob bombs and missiles whenever they want, take it up with Reagan, bush, Clinton, other bush, Obama, and now Trump. Even just in current events, did you miss the last eight years of completely unrelenting drone, missile, and bombings by Obama all over the region?

 

[marrec]

I love how conspiratorial people on the left are getting now that Trump is in office :lol

Also, whataboutism is never a solid argument. Yes, America has don't some bad stuff in the past, but perhaps we should focus on what's happening right now?

 

[norm9]

the Russians are saying only 23 landed in the airfield and the rest missed by a large distance lol

Tomahawk batting a little under .500 is incredibly good.

 

[Meadows]

Here's what I am gathering so far:

1) Personnel on the base were warned ahead of time - there seems to be no deaths or injuries reports.
2) Quite a lot of the equipment was removed ahead of time due to this warning.
3) Some equipment and facilities were destroyed. It seems like ~8-12 planes and a few structures?
4) The runway seems to be intact.

My general impression is that this won't escalate. It feels like a fairly calculated give-and-take in the sense that "hey, if you use chemical weapons, we'll blow up some of your shit."

But, there's a lot coming out about this rapidly and I'm still catching up. Does my summary sound relatively on-point, or am I missing things/incorrect?

I think that is a good assessment, especially the bolded.

As much as I hate Trump, I think this was well played. It's not enough to antagonise Russia given:

1) They were warned a long time in advance
2) They target an air base with no Russian presence
3) Russia admitted their support for Assad was not unconditional a few days earlier

But with that said, it still delivered a somewhat harmful blow to Syria's regime. Not enough to destabilise it or collapse it, but enough to say "don't do this again".

People are going crazy over Russia's reaction, but they have to do something right? I mean this is their sphere of influence, they can't just be like, oh yeah that's cool. The token gestures of beefing up air defences (also means $$$ for them) and condemning the attack as illegal are enough to show they are bothered but don't escalate tensions further.

Tillerson is still going over next week and I'd imagine this will all be ironed out relatively quickly a la the Turkey jet incident.

Russia doesn't want to get dragged into a war any more than we do.

 

[spineduke]

the Russians are saying only 23 landed in the airfield and the rest missed by a large distance lol

Reassuring for any country that ends up in America's sights...

 

[JuanLatino]

I love how conspiratorial people on the left are getting now that Trump is in office :lol

Also, whataboutism is never a solid argument. Yes, America has don't some bad stuff in the past, but perhaps we should focus on what's happening right now?

and just act like in the past & fully believe them?
So same process as always

 

[Audioboxer]

It's not about certain lives having value over others. It's about the specific weapon being used. Once you normalize it (which not responding yet again would have done) and destroy the rule that's been in place since WW1, it starts getting used more often, and then we're truly fucked. You do not want to live in a world where Sarin is being used like bombs are, the reasons are too many to count but you really need to read up on WW1 history.

Yeah it's pretty fucking grim

What is sarin?

Sarin is a nerve agent, one of a class of chemical weapons that affect the brain's ability to communicate with the body's organs through the nervous system. It is a colorless, tasteless, odorless liquid that was first synthesized in Germany in 1938 as a potential pesticide.

Sarin is considered ”the most volatile of the nerve agents," according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. ”This means it can easily and quickly evaporate from a liquid into a vapor and spread into the environment."

How does it work?

All nerve agents belong to a class of organic compounds that contain phosphorous, and work in essentially the same way, by inhibiting the action of a crucial enzyme in the body that allows muscles and organs to contract. Without the enzyme's action, the muscles and organs are constantly stimulated and stop working properly; asphyxiation soon follows.

How toxic is it?

According to the United States military, sarin is 81 times as toxic as cyanide and 543 times as toxic as chlorine, which has been used in Syria as a chemical weapon. Chlorine has legitimate commercial uses and is not banned.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/06/world/middleeast/sarin-nerve-agent.html?_r=0

or

How does it work?

But it doesn't directly poison its victims – instead, it turns the human nervous system against its owner.

The real killer is something called acetylcholine – a neurotransmitter that our nerves send out to instruct muscles to contract or relax.

It is a process that takes milliseconds, and keeps involuntary organs like heart, lungs, and intestines working day in, day out.

Sarin's deadly trick is to disable the enzyme that normally breaks down the neurotransmitter - leading to rapid build up of surplus messages ordering muscles to act.

Bombarded by intense and repetitive instructions, the victim's muscles try to comply - with undignified, painful, and often fatal consequences.

The immediate symptoms of Sarin exposure - a runny nose, crying, involuntary urination and defecation - are all a result of muscles involved being overloaded with orders to move.

It is not always deadly. But in the absence of antidotes, convulsions, paralysis, and death can follow in minutes.

Most victims, like the children in Idlib, suffocate after losing control of the muscles that control breathing.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/06/sarin-deadly-poison-used-idlib-attacks/

 

[elrechazado]

You're using an argument of arbitrary definition. "Agent Orange isn't one of Geneva's banned chemical weapons so it doesn't count."

That doesn't mean it wasn't a chemical weapon. The ends define the means. It killed and ruined the lives of millions. The US fired a gun that they hadn't tested or evaluated properly and it had giant, far-reaching effects.

OK so DDT, round up, and coal powered power plants are chemical weapons? It's nice that you want things to mean something different, but the facts are that "chemical weapon" has a specific meaning. Might as well call coal plant emissions"nuclear weapons" because they are giving radiation.

 

[pa22word]

Welcome to the last 7-8 decades of Republicans caring about executive power when Democrats are using it and vice versa. If you are concerned about executive power to lob bombs and missiles whenever they want, take it up with Reagan, bush, Clinton, other bush, Obama, and now Trump. Even just in current events, did you miss the last eight years of completely unrelenting drone, missile, and bombings by Obama all over the region?

Oh please, boener had obama dead to rights on Libya and didn't bother because he viewed the war powers act as unconstitutional anyways.

This is a bipartisan issue. The only time anyone really gets into a tiffy about it is more the chomsky leftist wing of the Democrats more than anyone else, and that's typically only when there's not a Democrat in office.

 

[Pbae]

I can't believe some of you are trying to downplay chemical warfare.

Yes they all end up killing people but conventional warfare and chemical/biological are miles apart.

One is a tactic that has known consequences and parameters for destructive force that can be taken into account while the other is a wild card tactic that is truly scorched earth depending on the gases used.

By that same argument, fucking Superman 64 is just as deadly as Sarin Gas because it can give you a brain aneurysm.

 

[FreedomFighter]

Please stop with these disingenuous misuse of terms. Those are not chemical weapons by any accepted definition. Lest anyone accuse me of carrying water for the US, I am also not saying they are fine to use. See above on agent Orange, and depleted uranium is certainly not a chemical weapon.

You're right, should've clarified that. I brought that up moreso as an example of banned munition being used, just like chemical weapons. Should've been clearer with that.

Coincidentally, this is also Russia's codename for Trump.

Yeah, how 'bout that.

I love how conspiratorial people on the left are getting now that Trump is in office :lol

Also, whataboutism is never a solid argument. Yes, America has don't some bad stuff in the past, but perhaps we should focus on what's happening right now?

Is what happened just last week off limits?

 

[D4Danger]

Is what happened just last week off limits?

It's a different issue. The use of chemical weapons should be met with an instant extreme response because it's the reddest of red lines. There's absolutely no give and nor should there be. Obama should've done this in 2013 but turned it into a bigger political issue. It should be dealt with in a vacuum.

 

[marrec]

and just act like in the past & fully believe them?
So same process as always

Litigating disconnected actions from the past (that have already been litigated) as a means of arguing against action in the present is wholly disingenuous.

People say "But America used chemical weapons in the past!" as if that means they cannot have a moral stand against chemical weapons in the present? So before taking a stance one way or another on any issue we as Americans have to go back, issue by issue, and make sure that we aren't being hypocritical because of people either long dead, or long out of power?

It would make sense if the premise were "America has performed military strikes recently in response to chemical weapon attacks and it didn't work out" but to say "but America did this thing 40 years ago!" with no follow up as to why that should matter is almost always moronic.

OH WAIT

You're referring to your grand conspiratorial thinking!

lmao nevermind continue being a crackpot sorry

 

[patapuf]

It's fine to call out the US's use of DDT, especially now that we know all about the effects. If they used that today in the way they used it back in vietnam the outrage would be immense (and the outrage back then was pretty big too).

Now imagine if instead of agent orange the US used Sarin or another gas actually designed to kill. That's why it's important to keep chemical weapons from use.

War sucks with bombs and guns too. But it's so much worse with chemical weapons.

 

[SomTervo]

OK so DDT, round up, and coal powered power plants are chemical weapons? It's nice that you want things to mean something different, but the facts are that "chemical weapon" has a specific meaning. Might as well call coal plant emissions"nuclear weapons" because they are giving radiation.

False equivalence mate. Comical false equivalence. DDT, round up and coal power weren't sprayed over places where people exclusively lived and they didn't cause immediate death and mutation in descendant's genes for 60 years to come.

The things you mention have correlationally impacted various risk factors and are probably bad for us; they haven't been causally linked directly with a massive humanitarian crisis in a localised part of the world, caused by the USA's specific actions.

 

[Galava]

Japanese prime minister voices support for U.S. military strikes on Syria

"Many innocent people became victims from the chemical attacks. The international community was shocked by the tragedy that left many young children among the victims," Abe told reporters.

"Japan supports the U.S. government's determination to prevent the spread and use of chemical weapons," he said.

NATO seems to back up Trump also on this one. If this escalates any further, it's not looking good for syrians and Bashar al-Ásad.

 

[Camp Freddie]

It's not about certain lives having value over others. It's about the specific weapon being used. Once you normalize it (which not responding yet again would have done) and destroy the rule that's been in place since WW1, it starts getting used more often, and then we're truly fucked. You do not want to live in a world where Sarin is being used like bombs are, the reasons are too many to count but you really need to read up on WW1 history.

This. Chemical weapons are banned because they are far more likely to result in far more civilian deaths than using conventional warfare. It's not about comparing the casualties of a single chemical attack with the casualties some other conventional attack.

There's a reason we've decided that Hiroshima and Nagasaki must not happen again, despite the firebombings* of other Japanese cities resulting in far higher death counts. It's the potential for worse nuclear bombings in the future that we are scared of. It's the fact that we could level every city in the country with less effort than destroying a single city in a conventional campaign.

Once you allow chemical weapons, they will make all wars much worse. Those civilian deaths in Aleppo become far more numerous if the combatants are allowed to start dumping Sarin over the opposition half of the city.

* IIRC firebombings are illegal too because of these WWII atrocities, but they are still seen as much less 'bad' than nukes.

 

[FreedomFighter]

It's a different issue. The use of chemical weapons should be met with an instant extreme response because it's the reddest of red lines. There's absolutely no give and nor should there be. Obama should've done this in 2013 but turned it into a bigger political issue. It should be dealt with in a vacuum.

They're both issues regarding civilians being killed - only difference is the method. It's not ok when we do it. It would've been a mistake for Obama to do it in 2013 and I think it's even more of a mistake now. We can't keep taking unilateral actions like this - it's not going to end well for any of us.

 

[zelas]

Um. You're downplaying this. Agent Orange was a legit chemical weapon that was deployed by the US, regardless of 'intention', which is a problematic thing to say anyway.

"New scientific research confirms what the Vietnamese have been claiming for years. It also portrays the US government as one that has illicitly used weapons of mass destruction, stymied all independent efforts to assess the impact of their deployment, failed to acknowledge cold, hard evidence of maiming and slaughter, and pursued a policy of evasion and deception." From that link above.



So they didn't know Agent Orange would cause this damage. Basically: they didn't research it well enough before use and then fired it over land lived on by hundreds of thousands. It could be just as bad as sarin or mustard gas, but it was new, so they couldn't know! Doesn't mean Agent Orange isn't just as bad.

Agent Orange has also affected all descendants and the US denied all of it. It's just as bad, man. It's just a different sort of chemical weapon.

Did people die on the ground they stood after coming into contact with agent orange? No? Then its not just as bad.

 

[Lifeline]

If the part in the article saying only infrastructure was targeted and no people. Can't really disagree with this move. Hopefully it serves as a stern warning against future chemical attacks.

 

[jellies_two]

The brits in ww2 had plans to use mustard gas and phosgene if the Nazis invaded.

I think it's a safe bet that any country - US included - would forget about treaties if they were sufficiently cornered. It's easy to be really picky about "humane" weapons when you have the upper hand.

Assad however had no need to use sarin which makes his random use, once, against kids, before trump has really been figured out, quite puzzling..

 

[marrec]

They're both issues regarding civilians being killed - only difference is the method. It's not ok when we do it. It would've been a mistake for Obama to do it in 2013 and I think it's even more of a mistake now. We can't keep taking unilateral actions like this - it's not going to end well for any of us.

If you look at the response from the world, you could argue for post-hoc multilateralism.

People have watched Syria degenerate over the last half-decade and ain't done shit about it while continually trying talking about doing something. I'm not sure what other recourse there could have been besides years more talking about what we should do.

 

[boiled goose]

Executive branch unilateral action.
Media war drums beating.
People even in this thread championing use of force.

We're fucked.

 

[TheContact]

I don't quite understand.

Doesn't the president still need permission to attack Syrian air strips since we're not technically at war with Syria, just hostile.

Seems like executive over reach of power. Especially for a president with the demeanor of 5 year old.

Congress has to agree. In the past they haven't. Today they have

 

[SomTervo]

Did people die on the ground they stood after coming into contact with agent orange? No? Then its not just as bad.

What's worse, though; the hundreds of thousands of people who were sprayed with it, or the millions of their descendants who have suffered in the decades since?

It's a time-delayed weapon. You don't really see the damage until years after. There's an argument that it's worse than Sarin etc because it affects multiple generations. I wouldn't make that argument though.

Besides all of this: of course it wasn't used as a weapon, but it is just as bad as a chemical weapon.

TL;DR: Chemicals are bad and dangerous.

 

[Jackpot]

Japanese prime minister voices support for U.S. military strikes on Syria


NATO seems to back up Trump also on this one. If this escalates any further, it's not looking good for syrians and Bashar al-Ásad.

NATO, UK, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Japan, and Australia all seem to have stated unequivocal support for the strikes.

 

[MisterFalcon]

What's worse, though; the hundreds of thousands of people who were sprayed with it, or the millions of their descendants who have suffered in the decades since?

I guess if they were all sprayed with sarin there would be no descendants to suffer so it's worse.

 

[patapuf]

The brits in ww2 had plans to use mustard gas and phosgene if the Nazis invaded.

I think it's a safe bet that any country - US included - would forget about treaties if they were sufficiently cornered. It's easy to be really picky about "humane" weapons when you have the upper hand.

Assad however had no need to use sarin which makes his random use, once, against kids, before trump has really been figured out, quite puzzling..

I mean, if the literal Nazis didn't use it when invaded i wouldn't be so sure about that.

Using these weapons when cornered means that the agressor is likely in the position to use them too. And since it's your own country that's the battleground you'll likely want to avoid that.

What's worse, though; the hundreds of thousands of people who were sprayed with it, or the millions of their descendants who have suffered in the decades since?

It's a time-delayed weapon. You don't really see the damage until years after. There's an argument that it's worse than Sarin etc because it affects multiple generations. I wouldn't make that argument though.

Besides all of this: of course it wasn't used as a weapon, but it is just as bad as a chemical weapon.

TL;DR: Chemicals are bad and dangerous.

I agree.

Vietnam should be a warning of why the ban of chemical weapons is so important, not used as a deflection.

Less "the US did it too!" and more "look what even "just" DDT does as chemical weapon", we can't allow their use!".

 

[marrec]

Executive branch unilateral action.
Media war drums beating.
People even in this thread championing use of force.

We're fucked.

I suppose if you're cynical. I don't think many people in this thread or in congress want to go to war though. Limited strikes against infrastructure is much less costly in human lives.

 

[bomb]

So Trump is on Russia's side and this is a stealthy partnership attack. LOL. Can't wait to read tomorrow's threads.

 

[TheExecutive]

Good. Seems like a measured and calculated response.

 

[Diablos]

Some other aftermath footage

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5389264644001/?#sp=show-clips

Damn, listen to that Fox News cheerleading about the strike. It reminds me of how much the right wing media loves reporting on war in a way that hopes to benefit a Republican administration, as they did in Iraq.

 

[Camp Freddie]

False equivalence mate. Comical false equivalence. DDT, round up and coal power weren't sprayed over places where people exclusively lived and they didn't cause immediate death and mutation in descendant's genes for 60 years to come.

The things you mention have correlationally impacted various risk factors and are probably bad for us; they haven't been causally linked directly with a massive humanitarian crisis in a localised part of the world, caused by the USA's specific actions.

Stop being facetious.

An unintended side effect - however horrific it was - is very different to the intentional use of chemical agents designed to kill a civilian population.
What you are doing is like accusing the Russians of nuclear attacks on Europe because of the Chernobyl fallout cloud.

Just because people are dead either way does not make the crimes equivalent, since intent does matter. When manufacturing defects kill people, the crime is typically negligence or at worst manslaughter. It is not murder.

Though to play devils advocate, the idea that the US could starve out the Viet Cong with herbicides was pretty awful, since civilians would (and did) suffer from starvation much more than enemy soldiers.

 

[JuanLatino]

Litigating disconnected actions from the past (that have already been litigated) as a means of arguing against action in the present is wholly disingenuous.

People say "But America used chemical weapons in the past!" as if that means they cannot have a moral stand against chemical weapons in the present? So before taking a stance one way or another on any issue we as Americans have to go back, issue by issue, and make sure that we aren't being hypocritical because of people either long dead, or long out of power?

It would make sense if the premise were "America has performed military strikes recently in response to chemical weapon attacks and it didn't work out" but to say "but America did this thing 40 years ago!" with no follow up as to why that should matter is almost always moronic.

OH WAIT

You're referring to your grand conspiratorial thinking!

lmao nevermind continue being a crackpot sorry

what? the chemical weapon debate was another discussion and not connected to my doubts about the current situation.


what im saying is,
so many lies and false news were spread during the past wars, especially by the US
(iraq soldiers killing infants, weapons of mass destruction, Vietnam Torpedo)

also called conspiracy theories in the past - now proven by cia files etc.

so that it is naturally for me to doubt them in this case & their intentions.

 

[jellies_two]

I mean, if the literal Nazis didn't use it when invaded i wouldn't be so sure about that.

Using these weapons when cornered means that the agressor is likely in the position to use them too. And since it's your own country that's the battleground you'll likely want to avoid that.

I believe that's because the Nazis were winning so much that when the end came they weren't really up on their chemical weapons tech. Apparently a Nazi scientist convinced Hitler that if he used them, the allies would too. and could.

Either way, the U.K. made chemical weapons and had plans to use them. That much is certain. I think they would have. That despite the lessons of ww1
And napalm in Vietnam was pretty close to a chemical weapon. It made the definitive anti-war image taken of brutally burned civilians.

 

[SomTervo]

Stop being facetious.

An unintended side effect - however horrific it was - is very different to the intentional use of chemical agents designed to kill a civilian population.
What you are doing is like accusing the Russians of nuclear attacks on Europe because of the Chernobyl fallout cloud.

Just because people are dead either way does not make the crimes equivalent, since intent does matter. When manufacturing defects kill people, the crime is typically negligence or at worst manslaughter. It is not murder.

Though to play devils advocate, the idea that the US could starve out the Viet Cong with herbicides was pretty awful, since civilians would (and did) suffer from starvation much more than enemy soldiers.

The root cause, though, was that the US hadn't researched AO well enough and then sprayed it wantonly. It wasn't just an accident - it was gross negligence. I get your point, though, it wasn't intended as a weaponised attack. Still, we should never, ever downplay it (the whole root of this discussion was people downplaying it). (Also your Russia/Chernobyl comparison is flawed af, and it was Ukraine, not Russia.)

I guess if they were all sprayed with sarin there would be no descendants to suffer so it's worse.

I guess that's true

 

[patapuf]

I believe that's because the Nazis were winning so much that when the end came they weren't really up on their chemical weapons tech. Apparently a Nazi scientist convinced Hitler that if he used them, the allies would too. and could.

Either way, the U.K. made chemical weapons and had plans to use them. That much is certain. I think they would have. That despite the lessons of ww1
And napalm in Vietnam was pretty close to a chemical weapon. It made the definitive anti-war image taken of brutally burned civilians.

You don't need high tech to make chemical weapons. The UK would have deeply regretted using them.

You won't hear me excuse the use of Napalm and DDT. Especially in the way the US did. Chemical weapon or not these were despicable indiscriminate attacks on the civil population.

Which is why i'm cool with enforcing the ban on chemical weapons. Especially if all it takes is a bombed airfield - that could still backfire though. It wasn't the most thouroughly planned retaliation.