Why Ban Chem Warfare?

I have been attempting to stay away from anything political lately, but this thought shot through my cranium on the way to work: Chem weapons, if developed properly, are much more efficient and less destructive than conventional bombs and bullets. Plus, they are actually “Green Warfare.” It takes a lot less fossil fuels to rebuild after a chem attack than a regular or “smart bomb” raid.

I would think chemical weapons would be the weapon of choice in a civil war.

Just a tid-bit of information we are not hearing much about from Syria: There are two major gas pipelines that both Russia and ourselves are deeply interested in. Makes you go HMMM?

2 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Carl D'Agostino
    Sep 11, 2013 @ 09:28:21

    If the pipelines go through the stan countries to Russia’s south it has no control. If it goes through Syria it does . Matter of price regulation get more $ from western Europe.


  2. The Conservative Hill Billy
    Sep 11, 2013 @ 09:30:36

    Think there are some businesses involved too. Carl, give me some time to dig around and find some hard facts. Heck, soft facts might work also:)


Hand me a beer and tell me what you think

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: