SYRIA thread

[rory_20_uk]

As Husar covers:

1. Should there be any standards in international relations? Some standards is demonstrably better than no standards.
2. Are some military technologies set apart from others? It seems pretty clear to me (as well as to a large proportion of the world's politicians over the 20th century) that chemical weapons, for one, are more weapons of terror than weapons of war, and so more like mines designed to maim than a simple shard of metal to the neck.

A key phrase in international laws is "superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering".

Thermobaric weapons are probably illegal by the spirit of international law. Is your complaint then that they are not fully illegal, that the law hasn't caught up to them yet? Hardly a case against restricting chemical weapons.

For further reference, here are the various conventions and protocols on Methods and Means of War, and the titled rules specifying their areas:

IV. WEAPONS
70
Weapons of a Nature to Cause Superfluous Injury or Unnecessary Suffering
71
Weapons That Are by Nature Indiscriminate
72
Poison
Nuclear Weapons
73
Biological Weapons
74
Chemical Weapons
75
Riot Control Agents
76
Herbicides
77
Expanding Bullets
78
Exploding Bullets
79
Weapons Primarily Injuring by Non-Detectable Fragments
80
Booby-Traps
81
Restrictions on the Use of Landmines
82
Recording of the Placement of Landmines
83
Removal or Neutralization of Landmines
84
The Protection of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Effects of Incendiary Weapons
85
The Use of Incendiary Weapons against Combatants
86
Blinding Laser Weapons

Chemical weapons used in assassinations have been ignored? Those were major international incidents that led to sanctions or other diplomatic retaliation. These didn't go unnoticed.

On the first point:

Every country agrees to follow them unless there is a need not to - those countries with the greatest numbers of cluster munitions refused to sign up, and the UK added wording to ensure that their weaponry was technically OK.
These rules are enforced only when it suits and only against countries too weak to defend - Israel using phosphorous against people was of course overlooked.
Rules enforced in this way only display the rotten corruption of the whole system - trying to make "might is right" slightly more palatable. The "spirit" of international law is another phrase that is taken by the strong to do whatever they want - especially since the UN so often fails to give them the cover to do so.

To the second point:

It is how a weapon is used, not what it is: mines are a fantastic weapon of defence since it has no offensive capabilities whatsoever. You can have a border laced with mines and AA weaponry and be extremely certain it is safe with the country on the other side not worried that they are about to be attacked. A brigade of tanks and attack helicopters might make it equally safe, but they have offensive capabilities. Dropping mines in bright colours to attract children is using them as a terror weapon; randomly bombing a city is pretty terrifying - and drones are so terrifying children in Afghanistan and Pakistan have come to fear the blue sky since it makes attacks more likely.

Superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is my personal favourite. Only such a phrase could have been created by lawyers who have never been in action. I am pretty certain that those in a war view any and all suffering sustained by their foes is necessary - to make them surrender. Or do the victors then get to take the losers to court for what they did?