tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11539837.post8308389017571463972..comments2024-01-19T04:29:08.081-06:00Comments on subrealism: russia and iran mull their syria options...,Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11539837.post-55496310589651607622013-09-01T11:10:14.109-05:002013-09-01T11:10:14.109-05:00C&B are terror weapons, but C also can be tact...C&B are terror weapons, but C also can be tactically very effective on the battlefield, IF those responsible for their deployment know how to use them, as the Iraqis were able to do in the late stages of the Iran-Iraq war.<br />Leaving aside who specifically deployed them in Syria a couple of weeks ago, or even if it was a consequence of accidental release collateral to a Syrian army ground offensive, the larger context is that the battlefield use of chemical weapons is now in the process of being normalized. This complicates tactical and strategic war planning down the road, including for WWIII. Humanitarian issues aside, this should be reason enough to want to keep everyone agreeing to keep the moratorium in place. But growing energy constraints are placing hard limits on what the post-WW2 international security system can effectively police. Something's got to give, and the moratorium on chemical is a "frill" compared to biological and nuclear. The British Parliament's rejection of war authorization is not simply due to skepticism about the veracity of the intelligence. Parliament is also skeptical that the moratorium on chemical can, or even should, be enforced internationally.<br />The moratorium on chemical is coming unraveled. I can feel it. Can't you?Nakajima Kikkanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11539837.post-46778437876060771492013-09-01T10:33:03.801-05:002013-09-01T10:33:03.801-05:00Well, as you know the only true WMD is a nuclear w...Well, as you know the only true WMD is a nuclear weapon. That said, chemical and biological are definitely terror weapons and with that in mind, are you entirely persuaded to think that a moratorium on the use of such weapons remains a "frill"? That also flies in the face of the false-flag narrative fig-leaf being feebly waved around to justify intervention.<br /><br /><br />But one would think that Bush's pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons doctrine would be more than sufficient grounds for black Bush to do whatever it is the Brookings cabal has assigned him to do.CNuhttp://subrealism.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11539837.post-23328246506329253922013-09-01T10:09:31.305-05:002013-09-01T10:09:31.305-05:00Something that doesn't get mentioned much--for...Something that doesn't get mentioned much--for obvious reasons--is that maintaining the international post-WW2 security order with it's network of treaties and protocols (such as that on chemical weapons) is very energy-intensive. As low-cost energy reserves continue to decline, holding all of this together is getting harder. Some of the first things to cut loose are "frills", the international protocol banning the use of chemical weapons being an obvious example.Nakajima Kikkanoreply@blogger.com