CourseLover
$10/per page/Negotiable
Question description
Eli210-04
Professor Jeremy
Xinhui He
The First draft
April 17,2017
Chemical weapons
Imagine the blocks or even the whole city is full of dead infected bodies. The water and the air are poisoned. Even after few generations, people who live around this area will have congenital disability children. All these brutal scenes are truly happening in some part of the world. They are schemed and ruthlessly proceed in the place wherever leaders of the whatever countries think it is necessary. The debate on the use of poisonous gas has been ongoing for more than a century. Use of chemical weapons has existed for centuries. Although the science of the years before the 20th century did not allow large scale production and usage of poisonous gas, such chemicals were still used in small scale and particularly in war situations. In fact, the Hague Conventions had already banned its usage in the 1890s and early 1900s (Strydom, 2010). However, the gasses used at that time had a significantly lower tendency to kill. However, its revolution began as early as 1915 after Germany used xylyl bromide against the Russians in early 1915, a process that failed miserably due to effect of cold (Pruszewicz, 2015). However, this acted as a basis for rigorous research that led to the large-scale manufacture of chlorine that Germany used against the French forces at the Battle of Ypres, and that led to the death of at least 6000 troops and injuring scores more (Christianson, 2010). Although it is perceived that large scales use began years before, the effectiveness of these gasses was not seen, and this led to the failure to recognize these cases. However, the usage of this gas by Germany was just an eye opener as Britain shortly responded in a similar method followed by other forces.
With the evolution of even deadlier gasses such as mustard, the effectiveness of these weapons in war situations became even more pronounced due to their thorough effect. In fact, use of poisonous gas the total war of the 20th century was responsible for at least 1.2 million casualties (Rae, 2015). During the war in the past, and which also happens at present day, success was measured in terms of the number of casualties of the enemy while maintaining low casualties amongst one’s group. As a result, the debate has further escalated with some individuals justifying their use of poisonous gas while others argue that its ban should be further strengthened. The following paper debates on the use of poisonous gas with a discussion on why it should be totally banned and counter-arguments on the same.
Poisonous gas should be banned. Despite arguments of the effectiveness of this gas at war situations, Darchini-Maragheh, Blain & Balali-Mood (2010) reports that the gas differentiates neither the enemy nor the innocent. As such, the gas kills everyone in its line of effect. During the total war of the last century, more than 1.2 million people lost their lives to the use of poisonous gas (Rae, 2015). Although these gasses were mainly descended from planes in warzones along the enemy line, the users of these gasses had no definite way of managing how this gas circulated. In fact, the presence of wind would propagate the flow of this gas to the unintended direction and, even though its concentration could not lead to death, it was responsible for various injuries and ineffectiveness of other forces. In fact, a large proportion of these deaths were on innocent civilians who happened to be near the battlegrounds.
The answer to the management of circulation of poisonous gasses has always been a no. In fact, these gasses have different levels of impact along their radius of impact. Towards the center, which in this case denotes the area of dispatch, deaths will ultimately occur in a very short duration. Slightly further from this region, the gasses will result in a few fatalities while leading to large scale injuries. Although fatal injuries might not be experienced in the regions beyond the second phase, people will still be affected although the signs might be passive. In fact, the injuries at the middle phase are potentially fatal and may also lead to other effects such as loss of senses. During the World War I, for example, the use of these gasses could spread even to the nearby villages that were occupied by the civilians, and who were not part of the war (Girard, 2008). In this case, poisonous gas should be banned at all costs during the war so as to protect the innocent.
When poisonous gas gained widespread use in the early 20th century, the reception was different. Although in some instances it appeared hypocritical such as the condemnation of Germany by Britain and subsequent gas attack by Britain on Germany, the issue drew diverse reactions from the major forces (Girard, 2008). In fact, a large proportion felt that this was against the human ethics through its slow and agonizing killing. The victims suffer slowly from asphyxiating effects such as headaches, nausea, pain, and suffocation, among other effects that create horrifying scenes. In fact, Winter (2014) described the effects of these gasses as leading to “shallow breathing and retching, pulse up to 120, an ashen face and the discharge of four pints of yellow liquid from the lungs each hour for the 48 of the drowning spasms.” When it was successfully used for the first time in large scale leading to deaths of 6000 French and Algerian soldiers, the Daily Mail ran an article headlined “Devilry: Thy name is Germany” in retaliation to the effect that the gas created (Pruszewicz, 2015). This was termed as highly unethical. The mention of poisonous gas was enough to create shivers amongst the fighters and who, surprisingly, were so courageous when it came to the normal ammunition combat.
Other than the traditional usages, this has continued to be experienced in the recent past with various state and militia forces using gasses in small amounts so as to ensure that they cause the desirable havoc and scare away the enemy. One of the most common sceneries is the recent purported use of poisonous gas by the Syrian Government against the rebel forces that led to the death of dozens, most of which were children and women (Ericson, 2017). In fact, this created a horrific scenery amongst those who were in the vicinity and who retrospectively reported the asphyxiating effects that they observed on the victims who suffered immensely before they succumbed to the gas (Dewan, Khadder & Yan, 2017). This caused one of the widest uproars in the world with many state leaders condemning the issue while others responded tactically as well as physically. Due to the effect that this created, the US responded by firing missiles projectile towards the state military’s warplanes while the United Nations Security Committee held an emergency meeting to deliberate on the necessary measures to effect against Syria (Rosenfeld, 2017). Generally, no one seems to agree with the use of poisonous gas to tackle the opponents with the supporters of the current regime and rebels alike condemning the practice and particularly due to its use in an area occupied by rebels and the neutral public.
In order to understand the uncertainty that surrounds this issue, it is necessary to revisit its development and various policies that have followed. Notably, the gas was banned by The Hague Conventions in 1899 and 1907 as a result of the various uses that had ensued and that, luckily, were not much successful (Strydom, 2010). Even with this ban, nothing prevented the warring nations at the time from advancing the usage of this gas. In fact, French and German forces had allegedly tried these gasses on multiple occasions unsuccessfully prior to the World War I. This was despite the existing ban on the gas. The successful usage by the German forces at the beginning of World War I instigated a wave of scientific advancement from the nation and the other forces so as to gain an advantage over each other and that could lead to a large instantaneous number of deaths on the enemy while posing fewer risks. Despite the existence of The Hague Conventions, many states failed to observe them and, on the contrary, accelerated the use of poisonous gas in war situations, which led to the death of more than one million soldiers and civilians by the end of the total war. In this case, the protocols had little influence on the future of this gas.
These protocols were renewed in the 1970s as the Geneva Protocol, and that banned the use of poisonous gasses (Arms & Zanders, 2015). However, these policies have been ignored, with some forces using such gasses in their wars. An example is Syrian Government that, despite the recent supposed usage of the gas that led to the death of rebels and civilians, the state military is accused of using small amounts of these gasses so as to boost the effectiveness of its war against rebels. This is similar to other studies that show continued secret usage of these gasses by government forces and militias alike in their wars. As was seen in the period of the World Wars, there were various developments that led to the advancement of these gasses to detrimental levels. At first, for example, the gasses were passive, and the effects were least felt. Advancements led to the development of chlorine gas that led to suffocation. This was followed by mustard and other gasses that affected not only the internal organs but also the external parts of those in contact with the gasses (Van, 1984). Due to the continued research on these gasses, the Germans were able to develop nerve gasses that were responsible for large-scale deaths and immense suffering amongst the victims (Kogon, Langbein & Rückerl, 1994). Were it not for the declaration against the use of these gasses and the effecting of the Geneva Protocol; there are concerns on the levels of deadliness that various nations could have achieved in this field (Arms & Zanders, 2015). In this case, these gasses could easily threaten the peace of the world were they to fall into the wrong hands.
One of the issues surround war situations is the number of fatalities and the side in which they fall. In this case, every side strives to create more fatalities on the opponents so as to achieve victory. This has led to the advancement of sophisticated and modernized weapons that are effective in leading to a large number of deaths within a short period such as the bombs, modern Warcraft, advanced ballistic weaponry, and other weapons of mass killing (Worek, Wille, Koller & Thiermann, 2016). In fact, some of these weapons are extensively used in war situations so as to gain quick victory against the enemy. One notable use is the recent use of modern ordnance air blast bomb by the United States against the Islamic State (IS) in Afghanistan that led to the destruction of their caves and scores of deaths (Cooper & Mashal, 2017). Proponents of poisonous gasses have questioned the difference of these weapons of mass destruction and the poisonous gasses. Hypothetically, both methods are equally successful, and their intention is similar. In this case, these people argue that the gasses should be granted equal status as the other high-magnitude weapons.
Warring groups tend to use attacking and defending techniques so as to achieve victory. This ensures that they defeat their enemies while receiving minimal casualties. In the recent US-IS scenario in Afghanistan, the militants used terraces and caves to hide and conduct guerilla attacks against the US forces, a case that gave them an advantage (Cooper & Mashal, 2017). However, the use of the modern ordnance air blast bomb was meant to destroy and eliminate the terrain advantage that the terrorist enjoyed. According to Worek, Wille, Koller & Thiermann (2016), poisonous gasses could have been used similarly to achieve similar or better results, and with no destruction of the terrain. It is for instances such as this one that has led to the increased questioning on whether the ban on poisonous gasses is for the benefit of the global community or just a way by the super powers to eliminate imminent threats while they continue to use other equally offensive techniques against the smaller groups.
There are a number of ways that proponents of the use of poisonous gasses use to justify their arguments. It is indeed questionable on the selective ban put in place on items that result in mass destruction. However, the debate by these people should shift towards the ban on other projectiles such as the modern ordnance air blast bomb rather than creating a comparison against the use of poisonous gasses. As has been identified, the use of poisonous gasses cannot be justified. Although fatalities are a common phenomenon in war situations, it should be conducted within the ethics of war, and the immense suffering of the victims before they ultimately succumb to these effects is unwarranted. Moreover, failure to implement a total ban would only lead to the increase in advancements of these gasses, and this could be a threat to the existence of world population. Death through guns and most other weapons can be managed, unlike poisonous gasses that kill indiscriminately. Additionally, Darchini-Maragheh, Blain & Balali-Mood (2015) insist that their long-term effects create an additional burden on both the victims and the society. In this case, these gasses should be completely banned and stiff measures instilled on those who go against these policies.
References
Arms, C. L., & Zanders, J. P. (June 17, 2015). The Geneva Protocol at 90, Part 1: Discovery of the dual-use dilemma. Arms Control Law, 2015-6.
Christianson, S. (2010). Fatal airs: The deadly history and apocalyptic future of lethal gases that threaten our world. Santa Barbara, Calif: Praeger.
Cooper, H. & Mashal, M. (2017). U.S. Drops ‘Mother of All Bombs’ on ISIS Caves in Afghanistan. New York Times. Available from: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/13/world/asia/moab...
Darchini-Maragheh, E., Blain, P. G., & Balali-Mood, M. (January 01, 2015). Delayed Complications and Long-Term Effects of SM Poisonings: Experience of Iran-Iraq War.
Dewan, A. Khadder, K. & Yan, H. (2017). Survivors of Syrian attack describe chemical bombs falling from sky. CNN. Available from: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/04/05/middleeast/idlib...
Ericson, A. (2017). Which chemical weapon was used in Syria? Here’s what investigators know. The Washington Post. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/...
Girard, M. (2008). A strange and formidable weapon: British responses to World War I poison gas. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Kogon, E., Langbein, H., & Rückerl, A. (1994). Nazi mass murder: A documentary history of the use of poison gas. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Pruszewicz, M. (2015). How deadly was the poison gas of WW1? BBC World Service. Available from: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-31042472
Rae, I. D. (November 01, 2015). Letter from Melbourne: Aussie chemistry in times of war. Chemistry in Australia, 41.
Rosenfeld, E. (2017). Trump launches attack on Syria with 59 Tomahawk missiles. CNBC. Available from http://www.cnbc.com/2017/04/06/us-military-has-launched-more-
50-than-missiles-aimed-at-syria-nbc-news.html
Strydom, H. (January 01, 2010). Prohibited weapons and the means and methods of warfare in the Rome statute. South African Yearbook of International Law, 35, 97-110.
Van, C. M. J. E. (January 01, 1984). Chemical weapons and deterrence: The World War II experience. International Security. , 84, 3-35.
Winter, D. (2014). Death's men: Soldiers of the Great War. Viking, UK
Worek, F., Wille, T., Koller, M., & Thiermann, H. (September 01, 2016). Toxicology of organophosphorus compounds in view of an increasing terrorist threat. Archives of Toxicology, 90, 9, 2131-2145.