re: #114 Decatur Deb

You’re trying to create a calculus of horror based on suffering, and no one can (or wants ) do the math on the agony of individuals at ground zero vs the fringe of an incendiary firestorm. If you want to argue morality, don’t argue physics, chemistry, and biology. I don’t want to see us start another deathfest, and don’t care if it’s about bludgeons or ion cannons.

I think it’s entirely reasonable to draw distinctions between weapons that can be targeted and aimed by their very nature, and those that cannot. Improper use of the former can and often does have horrifying results, but any use of the latter shows that the user is accepting before the action that unpredictable effects will result, and untargetted folks will die.

It’s the reckless disregard for third parties that makes the use of NBC (but especially biological and chemical) weapons so loathsome.

Our criminal justice system draws moral distinctions between intentional and unintentional killings of innocent third parties. I consider this to be a similar problem.