Are Conventional Weapons Worse Than Chemical Weapons

739 Words3 Pages
Are chemical weapons any worse compared to our so called "conventional" weapons and why are they such a big deal? I mean, they do the same thing as conventional weapons and they are cheaper and easier to make. They are less accurate and you have a higher chance of survival. So why do we make such a fuss over them? So the whole world has this idea that chemical weapons are bad and immoral. They have gone so far as to declare it illegal. They argue that they are indiscriminate, immoral and class them as "mass-destruction" weapons but what is it about "conventional" weapons that isn't mass destruction or indiscriminate? So blowing your enemies up with high explosives is allowable, so is shooting them. But chemical weapons? Shame on you Syria. With recent technological advances, conventional weapons kill, maim and terrorize in ways not much different from chemical weapons. If you were to take one of America's large bombs or ICBMS and drop it in the middle of Auckland city, it would probably take out half the city. Now drop 3 or 4 of these around and carpet bomb the city and BANG! You have mass destruction. By why aren't these bombs out lawed as well? They are mass destruction too aren't they? They just took out Auckland City. Next you have the bullets which scream through the air faster than the speed of sound, they hit you and tumble around inside you, hitting major organs and pulverizing you from the inside out. Maybe not mass destruction but if you have enough of them ripping through your body, you'll end up in the same state as someone killed by a bomb. Now think about what would happen if you were to drop a chemical weapon on Auckland City, the infrastructure would actually still be intact as opposed to the total destruction caused from a "conventional" weapon. But the damage done to people will be exactly the same, less even. You might say that dying

More about Are Conventional Weapons Worse Than Chemical Weapons

Open Document