Chemical gas: the new weapon?

by Meli.caron007 on August 28, 2013 - 8:45pm

Newspapers, TV News, blogs, Facebook, Twitter are all talking about these tragic incidents in Syria. Some are posting videos, other articles about the horrible and undeniable fact that the population have been intoxicated by chemical gases. But, first of all, are we really sure that it was an attack? And if yes, than, why?

The United States clearly mention that people in Syria have been attack and  they were almost sure that it was an attack coming from the president Assad against the rebels. Since the investigation of the UN in Damascus is not done yet, they can’t be at 100% sure. The present report of the UN is estimating over 300 deaths by gases intoxication and 3,600 person presents “neurotoxic symptom”. Even though they are not sure, the United States and France are ready to move in case of emergency and furthermore, they are planning to do an open military attack. On the contrary, Russia thinks that it would be preferable to pass by the political way, instead of taking risks and planned a fight right away like the USA would. The article also mentioned the fact that the Syria government took a lot of time before according to the UN team the access in some critical site. They even got shoot while they were in observation.

The UN team are there to prove that it was really a chemical attack but, do we really need that investigation to know what it is really happening? I mean , sure it is going to be useful to pass the security council , but we watch people dying every day since one week. And videos are already proving, in a sort of way, that people are dying by being chemically attacked. The chemical weapon is now a fact. What we need to know now, in my point of view , is who furnished them these weapons ?


There are a lot of good options to your question, but I have a very good clue: Russia.

Since United States wants to attack Syria in order to solve or mitigate the chemical weapon crisis, the world`s community does not seem to excited about it. Russian President, Vladimir Putin, said that we should not convince us just with rumors instead of proves.

Russia government says that if they sell chemical weapons to Syria is purely business because they do not share the same ideology with Syria. Do not? Russia has other buyers. For example, India and Iran buy a lot more weapons than Syria, so Russia will always have buyers.
Another huge issue is the place that occupies Russia in the United Nations, I do not think President Putin would be ok to vote yes on an attack to Syria, is definitely not a good situation for the group of G-20 in their next meeting.

There has been development since and now that time has passed a little the Unites States decided to go a more diplomatic way and follow Russia instead which in my opinion is what should have been done in the beginning. Even though chemical weapons can cause enormous amounts of damage and they can take away many lives at once, I believe that threatening a country that is so unstable that it just attacked its own citizens isn’t the best way of protecting your own. If the president had turned out to be mad at the U.S. and France for threatening them, they could have decided to wipeout a few cities. Instead the U.S. went along with Russia’s proposition in getting Syria to give up their weapons.
For more information you can read this article:

I agree that it was a sound decision of the U.S to not launch an attack and use a diplomatic approach. As was said, starting a war or merely threatening the country will only cause more damage. The point that I would like to approach though is the toxic gas that was used. I recently watched a video explaining the type of gas Syria used (i.e. Sarin gas) and it is said that when released, anybody that inhales it cannot relax his or her muscles anymore, which is very painful. If enough is inhaled, the diaphragm can cramp and lock the lungs, asphyxiating the victim. The gas is so effective at killing and leaving little trace that its use has been banned in warfare. Yes, I would rather not start a world war, but I feel that the UN should not only ask politely of Syria to stop using such dangerous chemical weapons, but to have some form of punishment for them against its citizens. I would actually push it further and hope that they pressure as many countries in signing the Chemical Weapons Convention instead of being so lenient about it.

At this point, I’m not so sure there’s any doubt left as to what happened in Syria; the chemical attacks are real, and it’s now up to the international community to decide how they should react to a threat like this. While we know that Russia and China are rather opposed to the idea of invading their territory, the United States is in a peculiar position: earlier this year, the president made a statement concerning the possible use of chemical weapons, asserting that any country that decides to openly use chemical weapons would force the United States’ hand into action. Now that Syria has called the U.S. on its bluff, it either has to go against the wishes of the international community to keep face or back off and slowly renounce its status as the world’s military superpower. Given that each option has its own pros and cons, which would be more ethically sound? My own take on the matter is that responding to an ethically immoral action with another one isn’t the greatest of options, but I could easily understand why some countries might choose to do so. Indeed, from a consequentialist point of view, inaction just might spell out more trouble than repressing the threat earlier on would. Since it’s near impossible to accurately predict the outcomes of such confrontations, however, I argue that there is very little to no benefit in waging war for its own sake when other alternatives are available, such as isolation from the international political and economic communities, which I would think would be a much more effective method as well as a technique to reduce and discourage the use of force on an international level.