True, but i do think times have changed. The cold war was back blast from WW2, i think we've changed as whole, we know how precious life is now, just look at how humans were viewed in the WW2, like animals
ISIL, ISIS, Daesh discussion thread.
- Thread starter RoboCod
- Start date
I think that is more that individuals have more of a voice these days than necessarily a change in human nature. The rest IMO is largely due to the increased stakes in terms of globalisation and weapons of mass destruction but at the same time neither is a guarantee against a future world war just make it a bit less likely.
I think communication is linked to morality. The fact that the world is connected to each has meant we've learnt about what we want from our civilisation, we are all very similar in what we want from life ie a good life. The internet has created a space for the world to improve as a whole. We were tribal without communication, the internet especially has taken away that tribal mentality and replaced it with a more compassionate mentality.
Russia won't need to encroach, they'll just wait for Ukraine to arrive to take back Crimea/order to Donbas/thatotherplace and abuse that to move further in officially. Someone used a drone to blow up a Ukrainian arms depot not so long ago, it's likely already beginning.
i would have thought it would on a large stockpile.
you need pretty specific conditions to destroy chemical weapons in thier entirety.
a large HE bomb on a warehouse does not sound like it.
why would you waste very limited chemical weapons on a small target knowing it would draw massive negative consequences?
that sand/gravel and bulldozers work very well and that the arab states learned well from the 6 day war?*
or that the west did not learn from the 6day war that destruction of runways needs to be immediately followed up with destruction of all ground based aircraft via strafing runs?
*actually edit: are cruise missiles capable of a Durandal like effect at creating massive craters to destroy runways?
Because Assad has been untouched for so long, he thinks he can get away with it and he's done it before. Obama drew a red line but didn't act on it, it's different now. Let's not be naive here, chemical weapons are difficult to make and store, i don't believe anyone but a government backed group have the ability to stockpile chemical weapons..
What?
I can easily stockpile a chemical if its just sitting in a container, perfectly safe beyond needing to be out of the sun/not physically abused too much.
sarin/ricin attacks have been performed by terror groups before (japan), ISIS have built useful thermal batteries and other advanced equipment sizing or manufacturing chemical weapons would be well within their scope.
also they could have captured the shells.
it makes no sense for the syrian government to use gas on such a bizarre target, surely if you're goping to use gas it's going to be on a mass of concentrated people aiming to kill thousands, not a few dozen which could have been achieved with conventional cheaper less "us missile strike" drawing weapons?
I don't think so personally, i think a lot of this stuff is much harder to weaponise than we think
your lack of comment aside that seems an extremely far reach in terms of motive.
almost bond villain esq in terms of motivations
not if its already in a tank/shell.
then it becomes much harder to destroy, in many case supercritical water oxidation levels of difficulty (iirc the USA operates an off shore facility for this purpose)
How do you explain him using chemical weapons before though? if it had never happened and he had a clean human rights record, i could understand, but he doesn't
Agreed. It sounds like the US are starting to try and push towards a ceasefire and future without Assad again. When will they learn?
As much as we don't like it to stop this war Assad and his government need to be given immunity/continued existence. He's not going to go anywhere with a gruesome execution over his head when he still has significant control of the country. It should have happened from the beginning, but unfortunately the US and some rebels just can't see that.
Symbolism. Honestly it was probably the best thing to do. After what seemed like a thawing of relations and comments about being more isolated it shows Syria that if they do cross the line there will be repercussions.
Hopefully it works, because it's only going to have to escalate if it doesn't.
Standard HE bombs would only result in a very inefficient localised dispersal unless it was something particularly nasty.
There is always the risk if the agent has been loaded into a rocket based delivery system that bombing the stockpile could result in those being launched randomly out of control with unpredictable results.
Problem with strafing runs is that (although the systems seem to have conveniently ignored some Israeli attacks) while the airbase and corridor to it for the cruise missiles was 60km out of range of anti-missile systems it was very much in the anti-aircraft range of those systems.
That was about the US putting nuclear weapons on Russia's border, then Russia retaliating by putting nuclear weapons close to the US though.
This is just another proxy war, none of which really escalated things significantly in the 50's-80's.
And unfortunately this has lead to a fightback by those ultraconseevatives that don't like this change, be that ISIS, US republicans or political extremists in the UK. They are doing it different ways, but the reasoning behind it is the same - dissolution of what they perceive their culture should be, change and generally more exposure to things they find uncomfortable. As a result they are fighting back, trying to force their opinions on others and looking to the past with rose tinted glasses.
Last edited:
inexperience? much like Saddam's use. if indeed he did use them at all before, ignoring all rebel groups/uncommanded actions of the syrian army
you say yourself he doesn't have a clean record, why would he risk it for literally no gain.
he gained nothing from this but a massive set back.
possible reasons are;
1) the your/nytimes opinion that he did it to look "unimpeachable/untouchable". a reach at best
2) hes a lunatic unconcerned with us/western/global interference, possible but unlikley as he's not an idiot/has russian advisors
3)some form of provocation either at the behest of Russia or inspire of Russia trying to draw them and the usa/natio into closer conflict to give him protection, potentially possible from either view point
4) the russian perspective it was a rebel/isis held mutations facility that happened to be storing chemical weapons, possible, but the question is known or unknown, no speciall attack was used so they may hav ebeen unknowing or they may have known such weapons where there and attacked conventionally in order to release and expose them at the cost of civilian lives.
the last option is the one i find most likely.
a knowledgeable strike on a chemical weapons storage facility. it leaves assad/russia blameless and victims simultaneously while offering a horrific propaganda victory.