SYRIA thread

[Husar]

Smoke and tear gas may technically count.

How many people were killed or hurt directly by smoke?

The civilian, or noncombatant, has always been essential to the prosecution and maintenance of war, often more so than the warfighters themselves. This is part of the reason why civilians have always been targeted from prehistoric times (other reasons including because it is expedient, because it is lucrative, and because it sates carnal impulses). The importance of civilians in and around the war machine relative to the combatants themselves has perhaps never been higher. At the same time, the targeting of civilians has never been less legitimate, and protections extended never greater.

Yet still the most effective means of bringing favorable termination to almost any conflict today would be the ruthless targeting of civilians. We should be very worried - here in the West.

That's actually a valid point, but civilians can be very divided, as in one half can be in favor of a war and the other half not. By targeting them all indiscriminately you're essentially punishing the ones who oppose the war effort just as much as the ones who don't. And in dictatorships, you may even have 80% opposition etc., etc. I would assume that and the fact that a cleaning lady does not consider/realize herself as contributing to the war effort even though she pays income taxes, is where the protections come from.

[Montmorency]

How many people were killed or hurt directly by smoke?



That's actually a valid point, but civilians can be very divided, as in one half can be in favor of a war and the other half not. By targeting them all indiscriminately you're essentially punishing the ones who oppose the war effort just as much as the ones who don't. And in dictatorships, you may even have 80% opposition etc., etc. I would assume that and the fact that a cleaning lady does not consider/realize herself as contributing to the war effort even though she pays income taxes, is where the protections come from.

From wiki on chemical weapons:

The Nazis did use chemical weapons in combat on several occasions along the Black Sea, notably in Sevastopol, where they used toxic smoke to force Russian resistance fighters out of caverns below the city, in violation of the 1925 Geneva Protocol.[59] The Nazis also used asphyxiating gas in the catacombs of Odessa in November 1941, following their capture of the city, and in late May 1942 during the Battle of the Kerch Peninsula in eastern Crimea.[59] Victor Israelyan, a Soviet ambassador, reported that the latter incident was perpetrated by the Wehrmacht's Chemical Forces and organized by a special detail of SS troops with the help of a field engineer battalion. Chemical Forces General Ochsner reported to German command in June 1942 that a chemical unit had taken part in the battle.[60] After the battle in mid-May 1942, roughly 3,000 Red Army soldiers and Soviet civilians not evacuated by sea were besieged in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimuskai quarry. After holding out for approximately three months, "poison gas was released into the tunnels, killing all but a few score of the Soviet defenders."[61] Thousands of those killed around Adzhimushk were documented to have been killed by asphyxiation from gas.[60]

From same link, the Italians applaid mustard and tear gas liberally in Ethiopia before the war. Similarly with the Japanese in Asia, though over a longer time period through the war.

Can't find anything about specific application or morbidities from tear gas/smoke on Western Front. For smoke, I assume, most of the (unintentional) effect must have to induce chronic conditions in one's own troops.

How many people were killed or hurt directly by smoke?



That's actually a valid point, but civilians can be very divided, as in one half can be in favor of a war and the other half not. By targeting them all indiscriminately you're essentially punishing the ones who oppose the war effort just as much as the ones who don't. And in dictatorships, you may even have 80% opposition etc., etc. I would assume that and the fact that a cleaning lady does not consider/realize herself as contributing to the war effort even though she pays income taxes, is where the protections come from.

If you're directly targeting civilians to destroy morale or the war economy, as in WW2 or Vietnam, the political opinions of individual civilians aren't relevant to you.

[rory_20_uk]

A squad of soldiers are patrolling Iraq / Afghanistan / Somalia / other lawless hellhole of your choice. From in front of them a person with a assault rifle suddenly emerges from a building and sprays a whole clip into the squad. Some miss, armour stops some but this is 30 bullets at close range - some soldiers suffer injury / death.

He then drops the now empty gun and legs it into the house and out the back.

The soldiers now catch up with who they think did it - this happened in a few seconds after all:

1) Execute him as an illegal combatant - without a uniform the Geneva Convention does not apply. He is an irregular or spy. Is there even now a war between two sovereign states? If not then again the entire framework isn't applicable.
2) Take him as a POW. Although he does not appear to be in an army, so this doesn't really apply - better whip up a "competent tribunal"
3) Arrest him. Although under what laws? Soldiers rarely have powers of arrest. Evidence is finger prints if they're lucky and even if it can be proved he recently fired a gun there are many who might have done so; will the local police even be able to protect his Human Rights?

So... how much effort to get the first person through the system? Which part of the system should even be used? No wonder that in such a case the soldiers probably just shoot him and be done with it.

[rory_20_uk]

From wiki on chemical weapons:



From same link, the Italians applaid mustard and tear gas liberally in Ethiopia before the war. Similarly with the Japanese in Asia, though over a longer time period through the war.

Can't find anything about specific application or morbidities from tear gas/smoke on Western Front. For smoke, I assume, most of the (unintentional) effect must have to induce chronic conditions in one's own troops.

If you're directly targeting civilians to destroy morale or the war economy, as in WW2 or Vietnam, the political opinions of individual civilians aren't relevant to you.

I thought the Japanese also used biological agents as well. Just like in medieval times where rotten carcasses were thrown over the walls.

Just to be clear - if the enemy is in a cave system is there really a difference for them to drop a MOAB right outside, pouring diesel / petrol into the cave and lighting it or releasing chlorine gas? Is going in and liberally using phosphorous grenades for smoke cover which happens to cause burns that continue until reaching the bone technically OK? You need to be some way away from the event to be able to use the word "victory" and have a soul.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They basis of the law of war is rather simple, it is reprisal. "Too late, chum" is a manifestation of this law in praxis, and de jure standards may well differ. In the midst of a scrum, however, reprisal tends to reassert itself as the dominant principle.

The Geneva conventions etc. are attempts to codify this and to dress it up with legal nicety.

International law in general is something of a misnomer. It is custom found valuable in the long term to the interests of the nations themselves. It is enforced only to the extent that other nations are willing and/or capable to bring another nation to heel when it transgresses such "laws."

[Montmorency]

They basis of the law of war is rather simple, it is reprisal. "Too late, chum" is a manifestation of this law in praxis, and de jure standards may well differ. In the midst of a scrum, however, reprisal tends to reassert itself as the dominant principle.

The Geneva conventions etc. are attempts to codify this and to dress it up with legal nicety.

International law in general is something of a misnomer. It is custom found valuable in the long term to the interests of the nations themselves. It is enforced only to the extent that other nations are willing and/or capable to bring another nation to heel when it transgresses such "laws."

There is a fork when addressing international law/norms, its validity, especially the question of reprisal:

1. Think again, asshole. >> you better have had a damn good reason.

2. Did they save me a spot in the bunker? >> ...

[Seamus Fermanagh]

There is a fork when addressing international law/norms, its validity, especially the question of reprisal:

1. Think again, asshole. >> you better have had a damn good reason.

2. Did they save me a spot in the bunker? >> ...

For the sake of clarity, would you please extend on the rationale of this dichotomy you suggest?

In part, because I am not a fan of dualism in decision making as it too easily limits problem solving. Also, because as a baseball fan, I am always mindful of Bera's advice on forks in the road.

[Husar]

From wiki on chemical weapons:

From same link, the Italians applaid mustard and tear gas liberally in Ethiopia before the war. Similarly with the Japanese in Asia, though over a longer time period through the war.

Can't find anything about specific application or morbidities from tear gas/smoke on Western Front. For smoke, I assume, most of the (unintentional) effect must have to induce chronic conditions in one's own troops.

All that is a FarCry(tm) from what Sarmatian said though:

If any serious conflict in the vein of WW2 happens again, all those rules and regulations will go out the window, like they did in WW2.

Not only were the Nazis barely "socially acceptable" in their behavior and everyone was trying to stop what they were doing, your point about the Italians was apparently happening before the war.
The allies didn't quite bomb Dresden with mustard gas and the nukes were quite new and pretty much immediately added to the list of weapons one should not use.

It was still pretty much total war since everyone was carpet bombing civilians and soldiers alike, but the rules about chemical weapons use did not quite "fly out the window" the moment it started.

[Montmorency]

For the sake of clarity, would you please extend on the rationale of this dichotomy you suggest?

In part, because I am not a fan of dualism in decision making as it too easily limits problem solving. Also, because as a baseball fan, I am always mindful of Bera's advice on forks in the road.

You might be barking up the wrong tree. What my post is saying: International law isn't really "law" but a gentleman's agreement. Thus it shouldn't be mocked or derided too harshly, because we could do with gentlemanly conduct, and governments credit it to some extent. If you contravene international law, then ideally (in a sense of the word) it should be violating the law to redeem it, like MLK or Abraham Lincoln. A true scenario of "anything goes" implies apocalypse.

Maybe I'm not adding much to your post after all...

All that is a FarCry(tm) from what Sarmatian said though:



Not only were the Nazis barely "socially acceptable" in their behavior and everyone was trying to stop what they were doing, your point about the Italians was apparently happening before the war.
The allies didn't quite bomb Dresden with mustard gas and the nukes were quite new and pretty much immediately added to the list of weapons one should not use.

It was still pretty much total war since everyone was carpet bombing civilians and soldiers alike, but the rules about chemical weapons use did not quite "fly out the window" the moment it started.

I wasn't disputing that, just remarking that smoke and tear gas can be considered chemical weapons. You know all about pedantry.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

[QUOTE=Montmorency;2053776188]You might be barking up the wrong tree. What my post is saying: International law isn't really "law" but a gentleman's agreement. Thus it shouldn't be mocked or derided too harshly, because we could do with gentlemanly conduct, and governments credit it to some extent. If you contravene international law, then ideally (in a sense of the word) it should be violating the law to redeem it, like MLK or Abraham Lincoln. A true scenario of "anything goes" implies apocalypse.

Maybe I'm not adding much to your post after all...]/QUOTE]

More or less the same thing with a different phrasing then.

Well it is said the "Great minds think alike....and fools seldom differ."

[Sarmatian]

All that is a FarCry(tm) from what Sarmatian said though:

Rules of war forbade targeting population centers. POW mistreatment. Mass murders. Concentration camps. Atomic bombs...

It's not specifically about chemical weapons, which were not used because there was no pressing need to use them, you could achieve terror effects with other weapons, which were easier to use, mass produce, transport and handle.

[Pannonian]

Well it is said the "Great minds think alike....and fools seldom differ."

Retweets

[Montmorency]

Rules of war forbade targeting population centers. POW mistreatment. Mass murders. Concentration camps. Atomic bombs...

It's not specifically about chemical weapons, which were not used because there was no pressing need to use them, you could achieve terror effects with other weapons, which were easier to use, mass produce, transport and handle.

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.

Categories such as "chemical," "conventional," and "weapons of mass destruction," in short, are not natural but are the products of politics.

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?)


Also, laterally Nietzsche complicating a concept like Chesterton's Fence:

For every kind of historiography there is no more important proposition than this, which has been discovered with so much effort, but now also ought to be discovered once and for all: the cause of the origin of a thing and its eventual usefulness, its actual employment and incorporation into a system of aims, lies worlds apart; whatever exists having somehow come into being, is again and again reinterpreted to new ends, taken over, transformed and redirected by some power superior to it... and the entire history of a 'thing,' an organ, a custom can in this way be a continuous sign-chain of ever new interpretations and adaptations, whose causes do not even have to be related to one another but, on the contrary, in some cases succeed and alternate with one another in purely chance fashion. The "evolution" of a thing, a custom, an organ is thus by no means its progressus toward a goal, even less a logical progressus by the shortest route and with the smallest expenditure of force—but the succession of more or less profound, more or less mutually independent processes of subduing, plus the resistances they encounter, the attempts at transformation for the purpose of defense and reaction, and the results of successful counteractions. The form is fluid, but the "meaning" is even more so.

[Husar]

Rules of war forbade targeting population centers. POW mistreatment. Mass murders. Concentration camps. Atomic bombs...

It's not specifically about chemical weapons, which were not used because there was no pressing need to use them, you could achieve terror effects with other weapons, which were easier to use, mass produce, transport and handle.

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.

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.

Well, yes, like I mentioned or intended to mention at some point, a flamethrower is basically a chemical weapon and even a firearm cannot operate without the chemical processes of an explosion. Only explosive devices really move the chemical part to the target side though. I don't think the effects of a bullet in a human body are largely chemical unless you count disturbing the chemical processes in the body as chemical warfare. But then a fistfight is also chemical warfare because you cannot punch someone with your fist without chemical processes in your body being involved... At that point it becomes a bit silly IMO. I'd say chemical warfare is the use of mostly or solely chemical effects on the side of the target to directly inflict damage. fire bombs and flamethrowers would probably be in a gray zone then...

[Gilrandir]

Rules of war forbade targeting population centers. POW mistreatment. Mass murders. Concentration camps. Atomic bombs...

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.

[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. :(

[Fragony]

You could have tried harder, how about 'Mohammeth'

[Husar]

So it's basically a super villain organization like Hydra now.
I heard their founder infiltrated the US presidency already.

[Fragony]

Hydra baby one more time

It is the Fuhrer of the reigh,oh yes, the Fuhrer of the reigh

get better

[Crandar]

Maybe daesh wouldn't be so strong, if YPG bothered to attack Hajin. It's been almost a year and still nothing, the Afrin excuse doesn't work anymore. Once they grabbed those oilfields in Deir Ezzor, after the controversial agreement with daesh in Raqqa, the Kurds pretty much ceased any offensive operations. Shamfur dispray, if you ask me.

[Tuuvi]

Maybe daesh wouldn't be so strong, if YPG bothered to attack Hajin. It's been almost a year and still nothing, the Afrin excuse doesn't work anymore. Once they grabbed those oilfields in Deir Ezzor, after the controversial agreement with daesh in Raqqa, the Kurds pretty much ceased any offensive operations. Shamfur dispray, if you ask me.

I think it still does, YPG needs US support both as protection against Turkey, who would probably invade the rest of YPG held areas if given the chance, and as leverage in negotiations with Assad. As soon as the threat of Daesh has subsided the US will drop YPG like a used rag and they will be helpless.