• Strategically necessary in combat

    They are Chemical not Biological which means they are easy to control and a matter of fact they are quite humane as gases like Hydrogen cyanide or Sarin can kill in less than a minute unlike napalm or incendiary bombs which melt people. Chemical weapons are also effective at exterminating enemy positions and I believe War is War and there shouldn't be no restrictions on no weapons no matter how destructive they are, it's stupid to say chemical weapons are inhumane.

  • Its good for people

    There are too many people in the world
    we need to kill some of them. People are bad and therefore we should kill them
    I hate all people equally, but the blacks are the worst
    white people are the best, but still hate them lol lol lol
    kill people save the animals

  • Certain measures have to be taken

    Yes, they are extremely destructive, but that's the entire point. To me, it's acceptable to let a few innocents die in place of a further 3000. As for the terrorists or war criminals or invaders or whatever; they are fucking tumours and need to be destroyed. Its very disappointing that there are no people for chemical weapons; everyone in this world is progressively becoming more passive until this world will cease to change because all the hippies complain about killing. Of course, I wouldn't murder an innocent person, though.

  • Why Even Would You?

    They kill the innocent very easily and are very hard to control. No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

  • No, chemical attacks shouldn't be used in wars.

    If you keep in touch with the media you could see that millions of kids, mothers and fathers die everyday in Syria because of chemical attacks ant this breaks my heart to see that this is what we've evolved to as humans. This is my argument to why chemical weapons shouldn't be used in wars

  • No,chemical wepons are not only deadly to the one fighting, but also deadly to those that are innocent.

    No, the use of chemical warfare is too hard to control and contain and could do more damage than good in a war scenario. Chemicals are usually spread through the air and it would be too hard to pin point specfic people, and the risk of hurting innocents would be too high.

  • No, chemical weapons should not be used in wars.

    Leaving aside the argument that there should not be any wars, chemical weapons are especially dangerous. Their dispersion cannot be controlled in the same way as an explosion. Changing winds can spread chemical weapons to civilian populations (or even back to the side that fired them). Treating chemical weapon injuries is costly, and can leave behind large numbers of permanently disabled individuals who will require costly care for the rest of their lives.

  • There is nothing that can justify their use.

    Chemical weapons should never be used in war, regardless of the circumstances. Hasn't everyone seen the pictures of young Vietnamese children crying and running, some of them having torn their clothes off, because they had been accidentally sprayed with napalm? Nothing can possibly justify the use of chemical weapons on our fellow man.

  • Wars should not happen

    Chemical weapons are a particularly gruesome element in war, and history shows the severe impact caused by chemical weapon attacks. At the same time, war itself is innjust. The people calling for war are never the people fighting in war, and this violence only spreads hatred while achieving nothing of value.

  • No, chemical weapons should not be used in wars.

    I do not believe that chemical weapons should be used in wars. I think that there are way too many things that can go wrong when countries decide to use something like chemical weapons. The risk for affecting non-combatants are too hight to warrant the use of such tactics and strategies.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.