Chemical versus conventional weapons

[panader0]

I get it that somehow chemical weapons are considered worse than
conventional weapons. There is a "rule" that such weapons shouldn't
be used. But to the dead, it didn't matter what killed them. Tomahawk
missiles can be very deadly too. I guess that's okay by the "rules".
Far more people have been killed in wars by conventional weapons.
I find chemical weapons, nerve agents and the like, to be evil.
Their sinister nature is scary. But conventional weapons are evil too.

[Warpy]

1. Suffocated or burned to death, what a choice!

I wish we could go back to armies fighting armies, allowing civilians to flee while the victors walked into their homes and stole stuff.

[ProudLib72]

2. It was all about mustard gas

Back in a time when the world had moral standards, the effects of chemical weapons were seen as too horrible compared to a clean death by conventional weapons.

I get your point and agree with it. I think it's silly for a government to claim the moral high ground because they did not use chemical weapons while another country did. Killing is killing no matter the method used. However, I do think most people still have a visceral reaction to seeing/hearing about the effects of chemical weapons. I also believe that we inherently think of chemical weapons as somehow sneaky and anyone who uses them is an amoral coward. It's weird how there can be any sort of dignity in a person's choice of weapon.