I am all for destroying chemical weapons. However we seem to think that innocent
people killed in drone attacks or by conventional weapons is somehow more moral!
I guess the difference is photos of innocent people killed by drone attacks are
never seen on TV or in the newspapers while chemical weapon victims always are.
What we can't see doesn't bother us.
"But they also are nearly impossible to control or contain, which makes them
ineffective on the battlefield and prone to dissemination among the population
at large."This is the difference between
chemical/biological/nuclear weapons and other conventional weapons. The
conventional weapons are being delivered to ever more specific locations.
Frequently, "collateral damage" can be kept to a minimum. On
the other hand, weapons of mass destruction spread their death to ever wider
locations, sometimes even affecting friendly forces and civilian populations.Death by any means can be agonizing, and deserves feelings of horror
whatever the source.
Now if we could just get them to finish the job and destroy the military itself
and the businessmen who created it. Of course, that would only work if the
businessmen in foreign countries would do the same.
Mountain Man, chemical weapons are considered a WMD, drones aren't.Furthermore, anyone who doesn't support drones should do us all a
favor and enlist. Drones take the place of our children and grandchildren. If
you don't like that then please, enlist.
What Ultra Bob fails to recognize is that evil exists, and that if we fail to
defend against it we will not fare well. It isn't just businessman vs.
businessman. The world is neither that simple nor that good.