US, Britain and Israel have used chemical weapons within the last 10 years... Kind of..

• Article

  
  

  http://www.filmsforaction.org/news/the_us_britain_and_israel_have_used_chemical_weapons_within_the_last_10_years/

  
  

  A debate on the above:

  
  

  ABC I don't want to get too semantic, but neither depleted uranium nor white phosphorus are chemical weapons? I agree that both have horrible effects if used in the wrong circumstances, but there's an important line between these and chemical weapons per se.
  
  For example, depleted uranium's primary effect is that it's an extremely dense material which punches through fortifications. The problem with DU is that it has toxic and radioactive properties which, in cases like Fallujah in '04, where extreme quantities built up in a place which was still inhabited by significant numbers of civilians, could have caused horrors like birth defects. While dreadful and regrettable, and I don't mean this to somehow atone, these effects are extrinsic to the intent of the attacker. The shells aren't fired with the intention of causing birth defects.
  
  The primary effect of nerve agents (i.e. proper chemical weapons, which incidentally are only confirmed to be stockpiled by four countries in the world), however, is to attack the central nervous system, with the typical result of constraining people's muscles so they lose control of their bodily functions, suffocate and die. Historically, they have typically been used en masse to injure and kill with the full intention of these horrible effects.
  
  All forms of death are as grim as each other, but I think it's important to keep a view on intent. I don't think the claims of hypocrisy are justified.

  
  
•   XYZ Deploying DU and white phosphorus with the knowledge of those effects is tantamount to deploying them with those intentions...

  
  
•   ABC I disagree, though to get into my reasons would involve some pretty dry and abstract ethical reasoning. I agree that to  deploy DU  and white phosphorus with knowledge of the effects is morally bad. (Though I'd leave out white phosphorus and  just stick with DU;  it's really quite a different case and is nowhere near the same league as chemical weapons.) I just think there's  qualitative difference  between the use of the them versus 'conventional' weapons which needs to be maintained else we end up    in unhelpful reductionism.

  ABC i.e. Bullets are pretty nasty, too! Where do we stop?
• ABC Furthermore on DU, the US military at least doesn't believe there's even a negative effect on the health of its own troops. One could question the honesty of that assertion, but assuming it's sincere then I don't think we can attribute to them true knowledge of the effects which we believe ourselves.
• XYZ i understand your point, i just dont agree that we only hold states responsible for the 'purported' intentional effects of their weapons, if theyre fully cognisant of toxic and radioactive qualities of these weapons then it seems to me that they are deploying toxic and radioactive arms
• ABC Oh of course I agree; effects are what matter. I'd just maintain a hierarchies of evil, so to speak. One of the cleanest deaths in war is a bullet through the head. One of the ugliest is lingering death in a trench from nerve gas. We're still working out how bad DU is along that scale, with both primary and secondary effects included (in time I imagine countries will ban its use in civilian areas and perhaps stop using it altogether), but I don't believe it shares its character with nerve gas either in the typical intent causing its use or in its sum effects.
• ABC In a sentence, we're shits, but they're worse shits.