3/2/05
Russell chs. 3-4

arguments in favor of gas warfare?
predominantly non-lethal
let gas do the work instead of soldiers killed in an assault
threat of gas warfare might prevent war, serve as a deterrent
we are in an arms race and can't afford to lose
it is relatively cheap
wanting revenge against the Germans

arguments against gas warfare?
can harm your own troops
easily kills civilians as well as combatants
some soldiers hated gas--not sporting, upset about effects they had seen, didn't want it used on them
moving away from the theories of honorable war, just war, to savagery
gas is part of moving the line of what is honorable way away from individual combat
this weapon caused special terror
couldn't control or predict the results of the technology (or results are indiscriminant)

why do people hold these particular arguments (in addition to personal philosophy)?
chemists wanted jobs and respect and money for research
people opposed saw it as a slippery slope and were already worried about technology (at least in war)
fear that technology is making war too horrible and that we aren't going to stop

technology gives us power--do we use it wisely?
can we control technology?

do treaties to limit what technology is used in war work?