Argument: No reaction will embolden the regime

Not responding to Syrian moves to use chemical weapons will be enabling the Syrian government to use chemical weapons. It has already been reported that some chemical weapons are being made ready for use such as the combining of the two chemical precursors, isopropanol and methylphosphony difluoride, needed to weaponize sarin gas. It means that “Physically, they’ve gotten to the point where the can load it up on a plane and drop it”. [1] If there is no response to this then Syria will be more likely to use weapons.

If there is no response to the limited use of chemical weapons, such as the use of Agent 15 in Homs, then there the regime will be encouraged to think that there will be no response to larger uses of chemical weapons. Syria would slowly escalate to see what it can get away with, an escalation that US officials think could “lead to a mass-casualty event” without the appropriate response. [2]

[1] Shachtman, Noah, and Ackerman, Spencer, ‘Exclusive: U.S. Sees Syria Prepping Chemical Weapons for Possible Attack’, Wired Danger Room, 3 December 2012, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/12/syria-chemical-weapons-3/

[2] Rogin, Josh, ‘Exclusive: Secret State Department cable: Chemical weapons used in Syria’, Foreign Policy The Cable, 15 January 2013, http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/15/secret_state_department_cable_chemical_weapons_used_in_syria

Candidate 1: "According to Russia Syria has centralised its chemical weapons into just one or two locations which makes it possible to attack and destroy the weapons comparatively easily. [1] This might not destroy all Syria’s chemical weapons but would still severely restrict their access to these weapons.

[1] ‘Syria ‘secures chemical weapons stockpile’’, Al Jazeera, 23 December 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/12/201212221532021654.html"
Candidate 2: "Attacking chemical weapons stores prevents a threat in itself as it runs the risk of blowing up the weapons and therefore dispersing them into the air. [1] This risk would potentially be even higher with any biological weapons as they would not become harmless through dispersal as Chemical weapons would.

Quite apart from the risks of setting off the arsenals when attacking them such attacks would be very unlikely to be successful. While Syria’s chemical weapons may be held in a few large centers this would seem to be unlikely given the history of attacks on unconventional weapons programs. Syria itself has had a nuclear weapons program destroyed as a result of an Israeli air attack in 2007. [2] This would have been a powerful lesson in the need to disperse these weapons to prevent their destruction from the air.

[1] ‘Preventing Syrian Chemical Weapons Threat From Becoming Deadly Reality’, PBS Newshour, 5 December 2012, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/july-dec12/syria2_12-05.html

[2] Harel, Amos, ‘Five years on, new details emerge about Israeli strike on Syrian reactor’, Haaretz, 10 September 2012, http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/five-years-on-new-details-emerge-about-israeli-strike-on-syrian-reactor-1.464033"
Candidate 3: "The use of chemical weapons would change the Chinese and Russian positions. Syrian officials have been reported as saying they would not use chemical weapons because “We would not commit suicide” as the support from Russia and China would be lost. [1] While China and Russia do have interests in Syria these interests are nothing like those China has in maintaining the North Korean regime.

[1] Blair, Charles P., ‘Why Assad Won’t Use His Chemical Weapons’, Foreign Policy, 6 December 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/06/why_assad_wont_use_his_chemical_weapons"
Candidate 4: "This is all supposition; we have no way of knowing if Syria will test any set red lines, or that they will use chemical weapons if there is no response. Instead it may be the response that causes the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian Foreign Ministry has said in the past that chemical and biological weapons “will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression.” [1] Clearly an intervention aiming to stop the use of chemical weapons would constitute just such external aggression.

[1] Associated Press, ‘Syrian regime makes chemical warfare threat’, guardian.co.uk, 23 July 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/23/syria-chemical-warfare-threat-assad"
Candidate 5: "Intervention would only be legitimate if it was sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council or another country came directly under attack. What is being suggested while abhorrent does not meet either of these conditions. The Security Council is unlikely to agree to an intervention now and Syria would be very foolish to use their chemical weapons on a neighbour so inviting attack. The use of chemical weapons may be banned by international law but that does not mean that their use authorizes an intervention against a sovereign nation. [1]

[1] Ku, Julian, ‘Would Syria’s Use of Chemical Weapons Change the Legality of U.S. Intervention?’, Opinio Juris, 7 December 2012, http://opiniojuris.org/2012/12/07/would-syrias-use-of-chemical-weapons-change-the-legality-of-u-s-intervention/"
Candidate 6: "All killing is abhorrent and one life is worth as much as any other. But while the lives lost are the same it is not true that the use of chemical weapons to kill is the same as conventional weapons; the difference is that one is banned and the other is not, their use makes intervention possible in a way it is not during a conventional conflict. The threat from chemical weapons is also of an order of magnitude greater than that of conventional weapons. They can kill immense numbers quickly and indiscriminately. The use of chemical weapons is an escalation that must not be allowed to happen."

This is all supposition; we have no way of knowing if Syria will test any set red lines, or that they will use chemical weapons if there is no response. Instead it may be the response that causes the use of chemical weapons. The Syrian Foreign Ministry has said in the past that chemical and biological weapons “will never be used unless Syria is exposed to external aggression.” [1] Clearly an intervention aiming to stop the use of chemical weapons would constitute just such external aggression.

[1] Associated Press, ‘Syrian regime makes chemical warfare threat’, guardian.co.uk, 23 July 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/23/syria-chemical-warfare-threat-assad
