SYRIA thread

[Sarmatian]

Difficult point I've encountered (more so in context but you the inferences are available): Conventional weapons without much strain could be defined as "chemical" weapons.



Book, mostly locked behind Google Books, apparently seeks to make a case against the limitations of "deductive" (e.g. utilitarian, instrumentalist, or pragmatic) and "essential" (argued from essential characteristics or distinctions) theories in why chemical weapons are treated and regarded as they are, and so takes a constructivist/Foucauldian approach.

"The Argument" is unwalled on Google Books version, pp. 11-13.

Book was published before Syrian War, but to extend what it seems like its core argument might be, Assad's use and Russia's defense of Assad's use of chemical weapons is in large part a symbolic assault on his adversaries both at home and abroad. This would certainly be in keeping with Russia's ongoing attempts to undermine and reorganize the international system in its favor.

EDIT: To elaborate, an assault on the international hierarchy of arbiters of chemical weapons and their 'curators', especially the United States, who gets to stockpile them while claiming its non-use as a moral high ground in forming its identity and rhetoric. Which obviously has implications beyond chemical weapons.

EDIT 2: I was wrong, the US has nearly eliminated its CW stockpiles and Nixon (!) pioneered their disposal with first-use renunciation. Though in light of his bombing campaigns, perhaps this lends credence to the constructivist theory.

(Although that interpretation kind of circuitously reinforces the 'mixed' appreciation of CW as straightforwardly "weapons of terror" rather than of war. But then on the other^2 hand, why do we need to think of a "weapon of war" in a strictly operational and bodily-destructive way?)

Most advanced nations have destroyed their stockpiles. You can get destructive enough toys, and the back lash is considerable. So, a poor choice from a cost benefit standpoint.

Cynic that I am, I very much doubt altruistic motivation usually put forward. At the same time, all of them kept a part of the stockpile (for sampling) and research centers (for counter measures). Doesn't take a genius to figure out all of them have the means to restart production instantly if need ever arises.

Some of the less advanced nations militarily kept a stockpile, as they didn't have enough high tech toys to achieve the same, and it is useful as a terror/intimidation weapon, so not so unpopular with dictators. For Syria, the cost of keeping entire stockpile proved to be too high after 2013.

While it is highly likely that Assad's forces used them on more than one occasion, the problem of politicization of international bodies remains. OPCW primary function isn't to assign guilt, but it has been used as such. In pretty much all cases of chemical weapon use in Syria, OPCW was only able to conclude whether they've been used or not. But US demanded guilt be assigned. So OPCW set a few new instruments, and as they didn't have any concrete evidence, they used testimonies, usually delivered through an intermediary.

At the same time, you have Russian campaign concentrated at discrediting OPCW, which is now much easier as OPCW was forced to discredit itself, with FFM's and JIM's.

So, even in peace time (in global terms), you have a manipulation of supposedly independent international institutions. There's absolutely no reason to assume that rules won't be suspended (with excuses of varying validity) in case of a larger conflict.

I give you partial points. A lot of it was done by the parties that the other parties wanted to stop partially because of those things they did or the mindset that made them do these things. I don't think atomic bombs broke any rules, that would have required them to be mentioned in those rules, no?

The worst thing the allies did was probably willfully targeting civilians, that I agree with and in that sense they did break the rules, yes.

Bah. The atomic bomb wasn't mentioned but it was covered by the same rules that forbade specific targeting of population centers. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no military targets whatsoever, which is why they were untouched before.

If you want an example, if you invent a Star Wars Blaster, there's no need to rewrite the law to say "murder by blaster is illegal".

The word "rules" presupposes existence of some written and officially adopted code which contains them. I doubt if there is "Code of war" or something like that.

There actually is, but I'm not in the mood for your pedantry. The point should be evident.

[Husar]

Bah. The atomic bomb wasn't mentioned but it was covered by the same rules that forbade specific targeting of population centers. Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no military targets whatsoever, which is why they were untouched before.

If you want an example, if you invent a Star Wars Blaster, there's no need to rewrite the law to say "murder by blaster is illegal".

But that puts these weapons on the same level, doesn't it? There is probably a good reason for nuclear weapons to be treated in a special way. One reason could be that we could wipe out the planet with nuclear weapons within a day whereas I dare you to show me how that could be done with "conventional weapons". Even the US couldn't carpet bomb Russia faster than Russia could nuke the entire US. In that sense conventional weapons give the defender more time and a better chance to actually fight back and defend themselves (if we ignore "untouchable" stealth planes for a moment). The simple scale of destruction is what makes them special. If you took the same ICBMs and put TNT in there, you wouldn't get anywhere near the same effect, see the >100 missiles fired at Syria. Had they all been nuclear, there might be no Syria anymore.

A blaster is barely more deadly than any other gun.

As for the bombing of civilians, I already gave you that and using nukes twice didn't make it any better either.
I'm just not as sure as you are about WW3 being fought with nukes, really depends on how crazy the leaders and their followers are.

[Sarmatian]

That's not the point. The point is, even though nuclear weapons weren't explicitly mentioned, naturally because they weren't invented at that point, their effect was covered, and no one could claim ignorance.

[Gilrandir]

There actually is, but I'm not in the mood for your pedantry. The point should be evident.

Rules are rules as long as they are ackonowledged as ones. Otherwise they are just wishful thinking.

[Gilrandir]

Another opinion on the number of Wagner's casualties: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/24/w...e=sectionfront

[rory_20_uk]

Conventional nukes tend to be not just a zero sum game but a negative sum game - if you win, you're the proud master of a radioactive wasteland and have probably poisoned your own country as well into the bargain. Assuming that the other lot didn't respond.

Chemical weapons are good - in killing the target but leaving the infrastructure intact and usable in a useful time frame - but unlikely to be able to disperse to the point they wipe out a whole country - unless we're talking about Vatican City / Singapore etc.

Biological weapons surely would be the go-to on this front. The main downside is that humans are (to the best of my knowledge) too similar to have a "phage" that targets based on nationality without spreading. Perhaps a country could in theory add the vaccine into the background ones the country requires. Even then, it would probably destabilise the world.

"Online weapons" do have in theory the ability to cripple one's foes and leave you untouched. As long as your infrastructure is not from the same manufacturer.

If nothing else, it does mean there are a lot more choices available for the next war-thirsty despot. Let us be grateful Donald has a limited imagination.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

..."Online weapons" do have in theory the ability to cripple one's foes and leave you untouched. As long as your infrastructure is not from the same manufacturer.

Always a good point to consider. When I read that I had a mini flashback to the Falklands campaign in the 80's.

[Fragony]

Conventional nukes tend to be not just a zero sum game but a negative sum game - if you win, you're the proud master of a radioactive wasteland and have probably poisoned your own country as well into the bargain. Assuming that the other lot didn't respond.

Chemical weapons are good - in killing the target but leaving the infrastructure intact and usable in a useful time frame - but unlikely to be able to disperse to the point they wipe out a whole country - unless we're talking about Vatican City / Singapore etc.

Biological weapons surely would be the go-to on this front. The main downside is that humans are (to the best of my knowledge) too similar to have a "phage" that targets based on nationality without spreading. Perhaps a country could in theory add the vaccine into the background ones the country requires. Even then, it would probably destabilise the world.

"Online weapons" do have in theory the ability to cripple one's foes and leave you untouched. As long as your infrastructure is not from the same manufacturer.

If nothing else, it does mean there are a lot more choices available for the next war-thirsty despot. Let us be grateful Donald has a limited imagination.

An ugly thought from me, IS is hardly there in the socalled Islamic State anymore, everybody against them probably already dead, dead or alive. Nuke would not be so bad, just putting everything out of itś misery

[Crandar]

It still controls some nice little villages in Euphrates. SDF tried to conquer the largest one (the first advance after half a year!), but it was defeated and quickly retreated.

[Montmorency]

ISIS

...

Risis!

isis may already have numbers sufficient to rebuild. Two stunning reports this month—by the United Nations and Trump’s own Defense Department—both contradict earlier U.S. claims that most isis fighters had been eliminated. The Sunni jihadi movement still has between twenty thousand and thirty thousand members on the loose in Iraq and Syria, including “thousands of active foreign terrorist fighters,” the U.N. said, despite the fall of its nominal capital, Raqqa, last October. The Pentagon report is more alarming: isis has fourteen thousand fighters—not just members—in Syria, with up to seventeen thousand in Iraq. More important, isis has successfully morphed from a proto-state into a “covert global network, with a weakened yet enduring core” in Iraq and Syria, with regional affiliates in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, the U.N. reports. It can “easily” obtain arms in areas with weak governance; it is now a threat to U.N. member states on five continents.

I needed a better pun. :(