Do you think- Chemical Weapons are worse than Conventional Attacks?

The White House says that 1,429 individuals were killed a month ago by chemical weapons propelled by the Assad administration into the Damascus suburb of Ghouta.

Alt Text: Chemical Weapons vs. Conventional Attacks
Image by ThePixelman from Pixabay

Pictures and feature purportedly from the scene are unfortunate.

The chemical weapon allegedly utilized by Assad was sarin gas, which, in high measurements, can kill inside minutes of presentation, first creating writhings, loss of motion, and afterward, at long last, respiratory disappointment, as per the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Be that as it may why are they more regrettable than conventional weapons?

After all, the total casualties in Syria, exceeding 100,000 deaths, far surpass the number of those killed by the chemical attack.

In a single battle in April 1915, for instance, a German chlorine attack claimed the lives of 15,000 Allied soldiers.


While sarin gas may really murder you speedier than, say,

Charles Blair states that chemical weapons, with their ability to quickly and unexpectedly cause harm, have become a “weapon of fear” that triggers an innate fear response within us.

While chemical weapons may not be worse than other weapons like the knives used in Rwanda or the guns employed by cartels in Mexico’s drug war, some argue that prohibiting all forms of violence is a worthwhile step towards creating a more peaceful world.

4 thoughts on “Do you think- Chemical Weapons are worse than Conventional Attacks?”

  1. Chemical weapons affect on human nerves system. It will make you abnormal. If advance technology help us to be powerful another side it’s have a great side effect.
    We all try to be powerful to other country and try to make our weapons more powerful and accurate and advance and other way we are making our death gadget.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Scroll to Top
%d bloggers like this: