If you bomb a chemical weapons storage facility, isn't that essentially the same as launching a chemical weapons attack on that area? I mean, by destroying the chemicals' containment, you're intentionally releasing them.

If there were stockpiles of chemical weapons at some facility, bombing it could result in numerous civilian casualties by dispersing, potentially, a very large amount of chemicals into the local environment. The only "safe" way to get rid of them would be to capture the facility intact and remove the chemicals. Either the Pentagon must have been willing to risk killing a bunch of innocent civilians with chemical weapons, or they must have known they weren't putting anyone at risk because there were no chemical weapons. It's kind of one or the other as far as I can see. Your thoughts?

Image for post If you bomb a chemical weapons storage facility, isn't that essentially the same as launching a chemical weapons attack on that area? I mean, by destroying the chemicals' containment, you're intentionally releasing them.
67% Yes, releasing chemical weapons is releasing chemical weapons 11% No, bombing chemical weapons is not the same as releasing chemical weapons 22% Other
Mazes avatar
Share
7 33
This user has deactivated their account.
@2746575

Nice, this reminds me of the well thought out posts we used to get on our beloved Conspiracy Cafe site.

This user has been banned.
@2746346

I say "Damned be those squirrels, again!"

This user has been banned.
@2746368

OH really only the isis soldiers hanging around there? I hope you are correct. I haven't seen much about that on the news. I think those Isis guys always drag innocent women and children with them. Only men have a ay in that world. Still If it will cause more pain for Isis the family goes along with the creeps.

LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundreds avatar LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred Yes, releasing chemical weapons is releasing... +1Reply
This user has been banned.
@2747718

most of Isis have been killed?YAHOOOOOOO!

LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundreds avatar LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred Yes, releasing chemical weapons is releasing... +1Reply
This user has been banned.
@2746413

Bingo. After a target is identified and selected, there is a lot of thought put into determining the best munition to be used.

@2746413

What makes you so sure an explosion will reliably destroy chemical weapons, are you an expert? Do you think that dropping bombs on a building creates a uniform and well controlled environment inside? Is chlorine a chemical that is easy to destroy with explosives? How about sarin?

@2746413

Nean Hope you are correct

LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundreds avatar LorraineTwevlehundredRaineTwelvehundred Yes, releasing chemical weapons is releasing... 0Reply

One would think so, and I've thought about it myself. I'm guessing that isn't of any grave concern, those innocents who may be affected by the bombing of a chemical weapon storage facility located in a country that is not an ally.
I'm not sure at all how close in the proximity of the release of chemical weapons non-targeted individuals would have to be to be a casualty or to suffer, though.
If it happens, I believe it's referred to as "collateral damage".

Piper2s avatar Piper2 Yes, releasing chemical weapons is releasing... +3Reply

Can't we all just be friends and use paper-scissors-rock approach to these minor disputes?

This user has deactivated their account.
@2746439

Where was hit?

At a Pentagon briefing shortly after Mr Trump's announcement, General Joseph Dunford listed three targets that had been struck:

-A scientific research facility in Damascus, allegedly connected to the production of chemical and biological weapons

-A chemical weapons storage facility west of Homs

-A chemical weapons equipment storage site and an important command post, also near Homs

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-43762251

This user has deactivated their account.
@2746531

It's right there in black and white, the Pentagon said they hit a chemical weapons storage facility. That's a storage facility, you know, where chemical weapons are stored.

No it's just mer mer mm, yeah sorry I kinda trailed off a bit there. 乂^◡^乂

Personally, I think assassination or a bombing of his residence would have been a better way to go.

This user has been banned.
@2747490

Makes me wonder how we would have handled Hitler, if the "Red Scare" had happened a few years earlier.

This user has been banned.
@2747525

More often than not, they do.
They are even supported by world powers, most of the time.

This user has been banned.
@2747538

The two largest nations ... who are both superpowers ... are dictatorships. I mean, you don't really believe Putin or Xi Jinping are elected?

Cuba has been under a dictatorship since 1959.

Hell, world powers LOVE dictators. (until they don't)
Why? Because you know what you're getting with a dictator. Whereas dealing with an elected government, the policies can change each election.

Some light reading:

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner...s-in-the-world

https://borgenproject.org/eight-current-dictators/

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.