Okay let's talk about chemical weapons (Don't even try to argue with me. I have credible sources. WHICH I WILL SHARE WITH YOU IF YOU WANT).

Note: I am aware that this is probably not why you are here, but I can totes recommend some sources on this subject to you if you need them. Skip down to the bottom!
They're horrible, I agree. But, when you think about it... aren't all weapons pretty horrible? Don't bombs also cause plenty of civilian casualties? I agree that chemical weapons are far more difficult to control, and as thus, end up killing more people who are not fighting the war. BUT everyone seems to cry in outrage every time they are used, while if people use guns, tanks, bombs, and grenades in war, that's all totally fine and dandy.
??? I don't get it and I'm sick and tired of people acting like chemical weapons are SO MUCH FUCKING WORSE THAN REGULAR WEAPONS when they do the exact same thing: kill (and injure). Weapons are weapons.

Now, don't get me wrong, I don't support the use of chemical weapons. I don't support the use of weapons at all. I'm a huge pacifist, I think. I just... I don't like violence, and I don't like war, and I don't like people getting hurt, but I am aware that it happens and I have to deal with that. I can't stop all wars in the world singlehandedly.

Let me tell you another thing about chemical weapons: logically, they make more sense to use in war than other traditional weapons (don't even try to question my knowledge of this- I spent 9 months writing a 4000 word paper on whether treaties were an effective means of control of chemical weapons from 1899-1930. I. have done. my fucking. research) because they cause fewer deaths and casualties- not to mention they cause much less damage to property, like buildings and roads, etc. I'll admit they probably have a not-so-terrific environmental impact, but hey, all those buried shells from WWI probably don't, either... same thing goes for all the resources used to MAKE weapons in the first place.

I just... I am very passionate about this, especially after my EE supervisor called this position "morally repugnant" last year. I'm sorry, what makes other weapons less morally repugnant? What makes these weapons worse than other weapons? (Because of this I am now of the mindset that said EE supervisor is a bit... idealistic, and also that he never really read my paper, if you know what I mean). I mean, there is quite a bit of evidence of psychological damage- things like "gas fright" and the whole gas-masks-in-WWI-were-super-shitty thing (apparently some soldiers had so much trouble breathing through them that they would tear them off, unwilling to suffocate under the mask but willing to face the poisoned air)... but again, let's spin it back around to other weapons. Wouldn't getting shot at for days on end cause some psychological damage? Having bombs drop near/on you? Having grenades thrown at you? Having limbs blown off? Yeah, nice try, but other weapons cause just as much psychological damage, and for some reason, they're all morally acceptable in war.

I found a good quote last year in my research that really illustrates my point- I'm going to try to find it again. Actually, I have a couple of good ones. This one is long, but I think it's worth reading.

"The general impression that gas is an inhumane weapon is derived partly from the German breach of faith in using it contrary to the Hague Convention, and partly from the nature and number of casualties in the earliest cloud attacks which were made against unprotected troops. Under the stress of a long war the individual is apt to forget the physical and mental sufferings it involves, unless he is daily in contact with them, but a dramatic occurrence such as that of the first gas attack forces on the imagination the brutal significance of war—the struggle for victory by killing—and the new weapon is judged as inhumane, like gunpowder in the fifteenth century. If we accept war as a possibility, the most humane weapon is that which leads to a decision with the smallest amount of human suffering and death. Judged from this standpoint, gas compares favourably with other weapons during the period when both sides were fully equipped for offence and defence. The death-rate among gas casualties was much lower than that among casualties from other causes, and not only was the death-rate lower, but a much smaller proportion of the injured suffered any permanent disability. There is no comparison between the permanent damage caused by gas, and the suffering caused to those who were maimed and blinded by shell and rifle fire. It is now generally admitted that in the later stages of the war many military objects could be attained with less suffering by using gas than by any other means. (Lefebure, Victor. The Riddle of the Rhine: Chemical Strategy in Peace and War. New York: The Chemical Foundation, Inc., 1923. (Chapter 11- It was an online source; a such, I have no page numbers)).

"The reader may feel that gas warfare is horrible and inhumane. No form of warfare is humane, for war is the negation of humanity. New gases may cause a larger proportion of deaths and perhaps more suffering than those used in 1918, but it is unlikely that any chemical weapon will cause more terrible effects than the weapons already accepted by civilized man in war." (Waitt, Alden H. Gas Warfare: The Chemical Weapon, Its Use, and Protection Against it. New York: Duell, Sloane, and Pierce, revised edition 1944. Pages 5-6)).

I TOLD YOU.

I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.

yer pal,
swegan :)

P.S. For anyone else who is curious/researching the subject, I can recommend the rest of my resources to you! I found online links to The Hague Convention (1899) (well it might just be the specific bit about chemical weapons, I am not sure), The Treaty of Versailles (from 1919; it is crazy long), and The Geneva convention (1925). I also have a few online books I was using- the second source I cited is actually available online- as well as real books that might be handy in researching this topic, or just chemical weapons in general (around the time they were first used en masse). I had to work so hard to find friggin' sources on this stuff, and even had to get a couple of interlibrary loans, and I would love if I could help someone else out. So if you need any links/book recommendations, let me know! (I also might recall the names of some of the online databases I used while looking for ebooks).