Argument: No fly zones and bombing could eliminate the threat of chemical weapons

One of the reasons why there has not been an intervention in Syria already is the difficulty of doing so. Preventing or limiting the use of chemical weapons however does represent a defined objective that is smaller, and therefore easier, than bringing peace to Syria. It however has to be accepted that if Assad’s regime is determined to use chemical weapons then some are likely to get through and how much is prevented is largely dependent on intelligence.

Interdicting chemical weapons during transport and bombing the storage facilities to make it much more difficult to move the weapons would be easiest to accomplish. [1] But if chemical weapons are about to be used then attacking the delivery vehicles would be necessary; any intervention would have overwhelming air superiority so would prevent the option of aircraft and helicopters being used to deliver the weapons.

More difficult to destroy are ballistic missiles, and particularly artillery [2] but even these are much easier to hit than infantry would be. In the conflict against Gaddafi successfully used precision guided weapons to destroy tanks and artillery. [3] Moreover an intervening force would not need to destroy every missile and artillery brigade only find those that are being issued with chemical weapons.

[1] Eisenstadt, Michael, ‘Chemical Reaction’, Foreign Policy, 18 January 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/18/chemical_reaction

[2] Fargo, Matthew, ‘Targeting Syria’s Chemical Weapons – A Dangerous Proposition’, Center for Strategic &amp; International Studies, 25 July 2012, http://csis.org/blog/targeting-syrias-chemical-weapons-dangerous-proposition

[3] Hebert, Adam J., ‘Libya: Victory Through Airpower’, Airforce-Magazine.com, December 2011, http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2011/December%202011/1211edit.aspx

Candidate 1: "The use of weapons may not change the diplomatic situation

Russia and China have been vetoing U.N. action on Syria throughout the crisis. [1] It is precisely the intervention to prevent a massacre that the Russians and Chinese are trying to avoid, for fear that this would simply be a pretext for regime change as happened in Libya. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has explicitly stated “We’ll not allow the Libyan experience to be reproduced in Syria.” [2] When Obama said that chemical weapons use was a red line Xinhua, China’s state news agency, responded “Obama's "red line" warnings merely aimed to seek new pretext for Syria intervention” urging continued negotiations instead. [3] While the use of chemical weapons is odious and would make Assad even more of a pariah than he already is it should be remembered that China supports an equally odious regime in North Korea, so may not see Chemical weapons as sufficient reason to change position.

[1] Lynch, Colum, ‘Russia, China veto U.N. action on Syria … and the blame game begins’, Foreign Policy Turtle Bay, 4 February 2012, http://turtlebay.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/04/russia_china_veto_un_action_on_syria_and_the_blame_game_begins

[2] ‘Russia Rules Out Libyan Scenario in Syria’, RIANovosti, 9 December 2012, http://en.rian.ru/russia/20121209/178024186.html

[3] Chang, Liu, ‘Obama’s “red line” warnings merely aimed to seek new pretext for Syria intervention’, Xinhua, 22 August 2012, http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2012-08/22/c_131800638.htm"
Candidate 2: "Intervention would be legitimate

If Syria uses, or looks as if it is about to use, chemical weapons then this would be a clear escalation that would require action. Syria has never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention [1] but it should be considered to be a part of customary international law so binding even on those who have not signed. [2]

The use of chemical weapons would also clearly be an attempt to cause huge numbers of casualties and large scale suffering. In 2005 with the United Nations World Summit the nations of the world signed up to “If a State is manifestly failing to protect its populations, the international community must be prepared to take collective action to protect populations.” [3] So any intervention would be fully justifiable, and indeed should occur as Syria would be demonstrating that it is “failing to protect its populations” by using chemical weapons on them. There is no doubt that the world has a moral responsibility to prevent atrocities in Syria, these atrocities are already happening, but the world cannot stand by while the Syrian government escalates their scale through the use of chemical weapons.

[1] ‘Non-Member States’, Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, http://www.opcw.org/about-opcw/non-member-states/

[2] ‘United States of America Practice Relating to Rule 74. Chemical Weapons’, ICRC, 2013, http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule74

[3] Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide, ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, United Nations, 2012,"
Candidate 3: "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 4: "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 5: "Do chemical weapons really make a difference?

Chemical and biological weapons are among the most horrifying weapons ever created by man; it is with good cause that they are banned. However if there have already been 60,000 [1] people killed by the conflict in Syria then would the use of chemical weapons, unless it was on a massive scale, would not make much difference in terms of the numbers of people the Assad regime is killing. [2] It is morally inconsistent to consider chemical weapons somehow different if they are not changing the scale of the killing. It is human lives that matter, or rather does not matter as has been made clear by the unwillingness to do anything, not the type of weapon that kill those people. If Syria kills a few thousand more by using chemical weapons then what is the difference to killing thousands more using conventional weapons?

[1] ‘Data suggests Syria death toll could be more than 60,000, says UN human rights office’, UN News Centre, 2 January 2013, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43866#.UPbBiXcnh8E

[2] Eisenstadt, Michael, ‘Chemical Reaction’, Foreign Policy, 18 January 2013, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/18/chemical_reaction"
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."
Candidate 7: "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 8: "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 9: "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 10: "Cannot prevent the use of chemical weapons

No intervention could prevent the use of chemical weapons of the Assad regime had decided to use them. No outside force could ever be certain they know where all Syria’s weapons are [1] and destroy them in time if they were distributed for use; even full scale air strikes might not be enough, the pentagon thinks it would require 75,000 troops to secure the arsenal in the event of Syria’s collapse. [2] The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Martin Dempsey, admits that even if acting before the use of Chemical weapons by the Syrian government the United States would not be able to stop their use. "The act of preventing the use of chemical weapons would be almost unachievable... because you would have to have such clarity of intelligence, you know, persistent surveillance, you'd have to actually see it before it happened, and that's -- that's unlikely, to be sure," [3] If widespread chemical weapons use had already occurred then the intervention could hardly be to prevent their use in the first place but to punish their use. Responding to the use of chemical weapons would seem to be pointless; the deaths will have occurred already. Syria may have more chemical weapons in its arsenal still to use but an attack would simply make them more likely to use everything they have.

[1] Stares, Paul B., ‘Preventing Chemical Weapons Use in Syria’, Council on Foreign Relations, 19 December 2012, http://www.cfr.org/syria/preventing-chemical-weapons-use-syria/p29701

[2] Alexander, Kris, ‘Syria’s Collapse Could be a Chem Weapon Nightmare’, Wired Danger Room, 16 July 2012, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/07/syria/

[3] 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 11: "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"

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
