Quote:

Originally Posted by woj I'm not sure I see the difference... does that mean that the use of primitive weapons is somehow less ethical than the use of advanced weapons? Do you think that use of conventional missiles with explosives would be preferred? Wouldn't likely same number of people die and on top of that half the city would be destroyed? What makes that outcome better?

Ethics is not even in the quotient.

It's a question of in whose hands that the chemical weapons will end up in.

Boots on the ground will be necessary to secure the known chemical weapons in Syria.

The Syrians can kill each other by any conventional means they employ.

After the chemical weapons are removed from the theatre of operations Syria should be subject to a total weapons embargo. They can throw rocks at each other when they run out of missiles and bullets.