Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Syria: a Defining Moment For Chemical Weapons?

Posted by Soulskill on from the every-use-of-weapons-is-a-defining-moment-for-the-targets dept.

Lasrick writes "Oliver Meier describes the long-term significance (even beyond the incredible human suffering) of Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons on August 21, and outlines six major steps for response. Quoting: 'The attack in August is a historic event with wider implications. Its impact on the role of chemical weapons in international security in general will depend primarily on the responses. Looking beyond the current crisis, failure to respond to the attacks could undermine the taboo against chemical weapons. ... First, a unified response by the international community is essential. The strength of international norms depends primarily on great-power support. So far, such a unified response is sorely lacking. Judgments about how to react to the use of chemical weapons appear to be tainted by preferences about the shape of a post-war Syria. This has already damaged the international chemical weapons legal regime.'"

6 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. I never understood the principle. by nospam007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    weapons that deliver a chemical reaction causing eye, skin and lung damage are bad.

    weapons that deliver a chemical reaction causing bits of metal flying through your eye, skin and lung are good.

    1. Re:I never understood the principle. by lxs · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure that the victims are comforted by the fact that their exposure to deadly chemicals was purely incidental..

    2. Re:I never understood the principle. by khallow · · Score: 5, Insightful

      12-fold increase in child cancers, lots of other symptoms remarkably similar to those in Hiroshima

      Any population would exhibit similar effects just from the increased medical scrutiny. Ie, if you start with a population for which no one is looking for such ailments, and then you start looking in great detail, you will find greatly increased numbers of those ailments. Observation bias is a powerful thing.

  2. How about no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lets just stay out of this fight. For once. Just once. let the rest of the world deal with it.

    We have nothing to gain. And trillions to lose. again. and too many dead soldiers already.
    No matter how it turns out this country will continue to hate our guts. Rightfully so maybe.

    Lets just stay out of it. Time to watch a war on CNN we don't have a stake in at all.

    Sometimes the only winning move is not to play.

  3. bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There has never been a treaty, or International Law, that says there must be a military response by otherwise uninvolved nations whenever there is a chemical weapons attack. This should be handled just like any other war crime. Someday we will get you, and we will put you on trial. We're not going to launch a weak-ass cruise missile campaign that will last for a measly two days and accomplish nothing but unnecessary civilian casualties.

    People aren't dumb. What's going on in Syria sucks. Our involvement will not make things better.

  4. failure to respond... by dnaumov · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... against whom? the rebels or the saudis?

    Noone with half a brain believes Assad is behind the chemical attack because

    1) He has nothing to gain by doing so
    2) He has everything to lose by doing so
    3) He is not a retard

    Not to mention that the past 6 months have shown that Assad isn't exactly cornered, on the contrary, he has been pushing further and further back against the rebels.