Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Sarin is a "binary agent" which is shipped around like baking soda and peroxide. Depending on how Syrians store their chemical weapons bombing the peroxide is kind of meaningless as it can be replaced more easily (but what a fireball!) and the more sophisticated precursor is worth hitting. Bonus points if you've got sarin splattered all over the nooks and crannies of an airfield you're trying to deny the enemy from using.

The targets hit in the airfield strike were primarily maintenance, fuel, ammunition, spare parts, ground control radars, etc etc. These things are what make airfields useful. Hitting the runway itself is a waste of time since any half-competent concrete company can repair it in hours, and in the meantime aircraft can take off and land on taxiways. Carefully. Airfields are actually some of the most robust targets to speak of.

Syria is out a couple of Su-22 Fitters, however. Shame. They'll be back to attack helicopters from this airfield which can be operated out of a soccer stadium.

Not to mention that to take out a runway for any significant amount of time, you'd need some HEAVY weaponry, and even then, they're relatively cheap to replace compared to other military infrastructure.

Though militaries usually try to keep the airfields as intact as possible in case they need to use them. More of a concern if you're a more regional power, but it's not as much of an issue these days due to being able to fly long distances, and for the US, also having bases all over the place.

[Frumple]

Not that sarin's the whole story, mind. Last I checked most of assad's chemical attacks have used chlorine, for all people seem to only really give even minor damns when it's sarin being used. Never really tried to figure out why media/gov't/whatever is as insistent as it is on ignoring the other stuff, now that I think about it...

[smjjames]

Not that sarin's the whole story, mind. Last I checked most of assad's chemical attacks have used chlorine, for all people seem to only really give even minor damns when it's sarin being used. Never really tried to figure out why media/gov't/whatever is as insistent as it is on ignoring the other stuff, now that I think about it...

The thing is that international law doesn't consider chlorine in the banned chemical warfare list, even though it's been used as such since WWI. Which might be part of it.

Of course though, the whole point is deterring the use of chemicals in warfare, which we haven't done very well as a global community. Sure, people get riled up over sarin or VX or some of the other nasty ones, but using something as simple as chlorine is still chemical warfare.

May be tangenting off into the armchair general general thread or something.

[EnigmaticHat]

AFAIK chlorine gas is banned.  Most chemical weapons treaties won't even let you use tear gas on soldiers.

I think the issue is Russia and the fact that its a civil war.

[Dunamisdeos]

AFAIK chlorine gas is banned.  Most chemical weapons treaties won't even let you use tear gas on soldiers.

I think the issue is Russia and the fact that its a civil war.

The use of "Riot Control Agents" is banned for use in warfare.

[smjjames]

AFAIK chlorine gas is banned.  Most chemical weapons treaties won't even let you use tear gas on soldiers.

I think the issue is Russia and the fact that its a civil war.

And the fact that Obama didn't even properly get them to stop using chemical attacks.

On chlorine, I read somewhere about chlorine not being included in war crimes or something or other, don't remember exactly, which is where I got that from.

The fact that it's a civil war wouldn't prevent the US from doing something about it. The fact that Russia, an ally of Syria, is involved, is definetly why it's hard to do something about it. See Russia's reaction (and Iran, who is also involved) after the strike that happened recently.

11 dimensional chess=Syria

And of course, not helping things is the WH's amorphous, most likely nonexistent, Syria policy. Haley and Tillerson are saying different things, meanwhile, Spicer appears to ramp it up to a radical change which the WH has since walked back.

I've heard that Trump is trying to do the Madman strategy that Nixon did, but Nixon didn't wing it, it was carefully planned. There's just no common message, in addition to the complete 180 that Trump did on Assad, going from 'I'm just going to ignore him' to 'TRUMP SMASH YOU IN THE BASE!'

On the OTHER side of the planet, the US is moving a carrier group to the Korean penninsula (en route tonight, or maybe arriving tonight, not sure), the North Koreans are making their usual noise over it.

[TheDarkStar]

The upside to threatening North Korea is that it's major backer (China) would probably stop supporting it if North Korea actually attacked anyone. The downside is that if North Korea actually did decide to bomb something it would be a gigantic catastrophe where potentially hundreds of thousands of South Koreans/possibly Japanese would die.

[smjjames]

The upside to threatening North Korea is that it's major backer (China) would probably stop supporting it if North Korea actually attacked anyone. The downside is that if North Korea actually did decide to bomb something it would be a gigantic catastrophe where potentially hundreds of thousands of South Koreans/possibly Japanese would die.

It's just been posturing (if hysterically on NK's part), so far.....

[Dunamisdeos]

The upside to threatening North Korea is that it's major backer (China) would probably stop supporting it if North Korea actually attacked anyone. The downside is that if North Korea actually did decide to bomb something it would be a gigantic catastrophe where potentially hundreds of thousands of South Koreans/possibly Japanese would die.

They landed a missile in the Sea of Japan, which depending on the exact location could be well within major population centers. I feel like if they actually did anything they would be flattened militarily, like, the day after. China's reaction would be the deciding factor, but I agree that they would be unlikely to escalate things.

@smjjames
Thanks for those links.

They seem to be saying that their stance has not changed, that they will continue previous policies of involvement or lack thereof, but that future chemical attacks will be met with additional action. They discuss barrel bombs as well, but those seem almost commonplace over there and we haven't taken action about them despite their being illegal as well.

[Frumple]

Well, sure, it's never been a question NK would be flattened if they actually did anything. It's just a question of how many (hundreds of) thousands precede them, because day after probably isn't quick enough.

And eh smj, if you're talking technical legalities, as near as I can recall internal conflicts have been largely exempt from anything chemical weapon wise basically forever. It's possible assad hasn't actually been really violating the geneva protocol in a technical sense, ferex, and then you get into the mentioned riot suppression stuff. There'd be a pretty definite CWC violation but there's apparently a non-negligible chance they're otherwise largely legally okay to gas their own populations, as fucked up as that sounds.

... though yeah, I'm like 60% sure it being a civil war would have some pretty substantial issues so far as intervention goes, insofar as the legal side of it. Like it or not, you'd still be dealing with a sovereign nation under most circumstances, and oddly enough a lot of people don't much like nation states attacking other ones and interfering in that sort of thing (and hell, I can see why: If you want a recent example, just look at ukraine, because that's exactly why a country would be sketchy as fuck about legitimizing interfering on any side of a civil conflict except the recognised government). UN intervention and coalition stuff mitigates a lot of that, as does being called in by the originally recognized government, but the US just kinda' blatantly rolling in and rolling over assad probably does have some pretty significant issues vis a vis international law et al. Mind you, we've probably done it before and will probably do it again, but it looks like there's got to be more gaf than we seem to have for syria before we dick whip international law in that particular manner.

Russia, meanwhile, would be getting a pass because they are backing the original (and so far as I can recall still recognized) government. Makes shit complicated, particularly when we've never really cared enough (and, let's be honest about our government, still don't) to push international relations towards being actively against the assad regime.

[Dunamisdeos]

Actually the manufacture of the stuff is straight-up prohibited.

The legal part of it comes in where Syria signed on the chemical weapon ban. They are therefore bound by it, and it calls other signing nations to step in if it is broken. Doesn't matter if they keep it at home, they signed a document that said they wouldn't make any (much less use it) under penalty of intervention.

[smjjames]

The upside to threatening North Korea is that it's major backer (China) would probably stop supporting it if North Korea actually attacked anyone. The downside is that if North Korea actually did decide to bomb something it would be a gigantic catastrophe where potentially hundreds of thousands of South Koreans/possibly Japanese would die.

They landed a missile in the Sea of Japan, which depending on the exact location could be well within major population centers. I feel like if they actually did anything they would be flattened militarily, like, the day after. China's reaction would be the deciding factor, but I agree that they would be unlikely to escalate things.

I really doubt China's reaction would decide things, after all, NK effectively gave China the middle finger recently and pretty much spat in their face. The only reason China hasn't abandoned NK long ago is because it doesn't want US troops stationed in a country bordering them or having a US friendly country bordering them. Not to mention the fallout (nuclear and/or metaphorical) of a collapse of NK or a conflict there.

That said, China would do everything possible to de-escalate the situation as it's in their best interest for multiple reasons to not have a conflict break out.

And yeah, it's been long known that if NK goes down in a conflict, they're going to try to take as many as possible down with them.

Also, MSH would probably object to this tangent and try to get it to his NK thread, but anyway, it's equally relevant to both.

Actually the manufacture of the stuff is straight-up prohibited.

The legal part of it comes in where Syria signed on the chemical weapon ban. They are therefore bound by it, and it calls other signing nations to step in if it is broken. Doesn't matter if they keep it at home, they signed a document that said they wouldn't make any (much less use it) under penalty of intervention.

Of what, Chlorine? I'm guessing you meant the sarin gas stuff. Chlorine gas is an element (well, the vapor form), which has FAR more practical uses than Uranium (just an example), so, you can't exactly ban production of it.

@smjjames
Thanks for those links.

They seem to be saying that their stance has not changed, that they will continue previous policies of involvement or lack thereof, but that future chemical attacks will be met with additional action. They discuss barrel bombs as well, but those seem almost commonplace over there and we haven't taken action about them despite their being illegal as well.

True, but it certainly doesn't help things to not have a coherent policy.

[Frumple]

Actually the manufacture of the stuff is straight-up prohibited.

The legal part of it comes in where Syria signed on the chemical weapon ban. They are therefore bound by it, and it calls other signing nations to step in if it is broken. Doesn't matter if they keep it at home, they signed a document that said they wouldn't make any (much less use it) under penalty of intervention.

Again, the CWC, yes, which is fairly explicit about the process of that intervention, if not its particulars. The other ones... even if syria's on 'em, apparently international courts and whatnot have been pretty consistent in not applying them to internal stuff. As messed up as it is, to all appearances the rules (or at absolute least, history of prosecution and enforcement) are more lenient about using the stuff on your own population, and that's the stuff that's much less explicit about the hows and whats of intervention. Legally, it's probably pretty arguable that assad hasn't done anything that would justify something like a spontaneous punitive air strike. Buncha' other shit, sure, but said other shit involves more than one signatory getting in on things and notably more explicitly than a belated non-binding word of support.

E: Though I'm not sure how confirmed it is, but for other "fun" times, I've noticed report that russia has bombed the/a hospital that was treating folks that survived the chemical attack.

[Strife26]

The legal standards for humanitarian intervention are not well established, although the world has generally moved beyond black box sovereignty.

[Dunamisdeos]

I don't think that's how it works? I think that the particulars of that intervention are very vague, yes. But I don't think that because it hasn't been enforced in every case that they are legally not accountable for breaking it. I definitely don't think any of the international laws on chemical weapons were intended or implied to be aimed squarely at soldiers rather than civilians.

I don't see any provision for civil war/any internal conflict. It appears to apply to warfare/conflict in general. The manufacturing part could care less whether you are at war or no. Multiple signatories were advised beforehand. Israel and the UK both have come forward with that, I would be unsurprised to find that other nations were also aware. They also advised both Syria and Russia beforehand. It was not a secret.

Legally it look like "Chemical Weapon = Vague Intervention". I think it's more because those cases don't really get to international court before they are "resolved" one way or another. For instance, Saddam committed chemical weapon based genocide during his reign, and he never made it to an international court.

E: I've also seen those reports, and multiple similar others about that kind of retribution. They don't seem confirmed yet.