How far can a chemical weapon go?
By meumeu25
@meumeu25 (913)
United Arab Emirates
August 24, 2012 3:30am CST
Since a chemical weapon can be spread in a lot of ways including by air, if a country uses it how far do you think it will go? Is it going to be as fatal as it is where it spreaded first? Is it possible that it can be spreaded around the world? Is it important that the neighboring countries should pay attention about it? What do you think? It's been rumored that Syria have chemical weapons and that there's a possibility that the country will use them. To be honest, I am worried about it, my worries is not only about me it's for everybody especially children,I know I sound like a paranoid :P, but we don't know what's happening there exactly or how desperate the situation can be. The headlines is always about Syria now a days. Horrible, sad and depressing as always.
4 responses
@koopharper (7599)
• Canada
24 Aug 12
As always it would depend on the weapon. There is a wide variety of chemical weapons that could be built. Some would cause widespread devastation while others cover just a small area. It is no longer a rumor that Syria has chemical weapons. They have admitted publicly to their existence. They are saying they will not use them against their own people. I hope the conflict there will end soon.
@cagampan1991 (364)
• Philippines
24 Aug 12
I dont know why developed countries would do this kind of things. Are they wanting or trying to invade other countries. There's always been this chemical warfare in this news. And even the ANTRAX values arrived here in the Philippines which is part of a chemical warfare thingy. I feel bad for the ordinary people that are affected because of war.
@artemeis (4189)
• China
24 Aug 12
I believe chemical weapon can be very devastating if you read into the Iran-Iraq war, you will know the horrible effects it carries.
As for Syria, I have to say that the country has it coming when it has been hosting every known terrorist groups. In my opinion, I could not help feeling that these groups are responsible for the country's havoc that could not come to a sooner peaceful conclusion.
The government really have a lot on their plate now and I hope that the president will be true to his words that he would not use the chemical weapon short of foreign intervention. But, I really do not see them able to do it all by themselves when most of his reliable supporters are either killed or have already defected elsewhere.
@meumeu25 (913)
• United Arab Emirates
26 Aug 12
Hi,
I think your right at some point, my views are only based in the reports in the news papers that I read. Most of the time it shows the regime taking advantage of it's power and the opposition fighting for their freedom and/or both groups are trying to take over territories killing lots of people in the process.
I have no idea what's really happening there or who's responsible for igniting the war. But the shelling in my opinion is a desperate action because it kills a lot of innocent people.
@Oktavist (396)
• Romania
24 Aug 12
Well,that depends of the chemical agent.If the virus is airborne,then only the people exposed would be getting ill.But if the airborne virus is contagious from man to man,then its spectrum broadly increases.The virus can be taken or from the air,or from people already exposed.
Most likely though,if it's a chemical weapon,it would only affect the target.It would be counterproductive if it contagious,because then Syria could have a risk.
Rest assured,I don't think there will be a chemical warfare that soon.I think Syria won't do it.Otherwise,it would be her against the world.
@meumeu25 (913)
• United Arab Emirates
26 Aug 12
Hi,
I saw the 2 names of the chemicals in the news but I forgot, it described how fatal they are but not how far it can get. Well we hope and pray they really won't use them, and your absolutely it will result in to another conflict involving other nations.
Thank you for your response and have nice sunday.
