All Weapons Are Wrong. Aren’t They?

It seems, as with most things in this crazy world, there are graduations in weapons. Levels of bad, of wrong, of evil.

It would be nice to start from the absolute that all killing is wrong. But that one is too simple.

It seems that some killing is more acceptable than others. So, for a soldier to kill a soldier is the acceptable face of the world’s inability to deal rationally with its disagreements.

For a soldier to kill a civilian is not, but tends to be written off as collateral damage – an anodyne phrase for a totally unacceptable death.

And for a civilian to kill a civilian – well, there are laws against that.

So, the qualifications begin to be applied. Circumstance, cause and effect, aggression versus defense; all add their own justifications.

And then there are the means, the methods, the ingenuity of man to develop and evolve more and more effective methods of individual and mass destruction – now there is a phrase.

And the more destructive the method, the more remote it becomes. And the wider it spreads.

From the individual, the gun, the automatic rifle, the numbers can escalate. To the explosion, the bomb, the very big bomb.

And then there are the chemical weapons. For some reason, because they are not solid, not controllable, not discriminate, they are somehow the more evil.

But surely, it is all evil. There is as much potential for innocent victims with a gun as a gas attack, and children die from both. There is no difference, except at some stage in history chemical weapons were deemed unacceptable as a means to kill innocent people.

Yes, the latest chemical weapon attacks in Syria are atrocious, and should never happen. And every innocent death should never happen.

But no death from an aggressive act should be acceptable. And yet the response of the great and the good around the world is to pound chests and call for more destruction.

And, surprisingly enough, destruction leads to more destruction. And deeper and longer lasting hatred, and distrust, and disaster. And the total loss of humanity.

So, let us set aside the hypocrisy of condemning chemical weapons whilst justifying the retention of nuclear. Let us set aside that, in all the recent histories of those countries crying foul there are times when blind eyes were turned.

Let us start from the place that all death as a result of a violent act is wrong. And begin the conversation again. And refuse to accept any justification for an alternative to that truth.

Or, we can continue to use manufactured death as an alternative means of population control.

Your choice!