The general principle is “even while fighting a war, don’t harm people unnecessarily; only harm them in ways that help you win”. Chemical weapons violate this principle in two main ways:
* They do harm *indiscriminately*: for example, they may kill non-combatants who are near the battlefield but not participating.
* The harm they do is frequently *delayed*: for example, exposure to chemical weapons may cause an enemy soldier to come down with a neurological disease ten years after the war is over.
The thought is that banning such weapons won’t change which side wins the war, but *will* decrease the total amount of harm done by the war. If a regime uses them anyway, we know that the regime has evil aims: it’s fighting its war *in order to* harm people, not just for resources, security, pride, or whatever other excuse it may have given.
Latest Answers