Post-oral write-up My point: Some speculate on the reasons the International community have to intervene is Syria but I firmly believe that there would be no economic benefit to the west in intervening militarily. The only Justification I could imagine behind a western strike in Syria is for the sake of civilian safety. I believe however, that the west should really think twice before intervening.
Attacking the Syrian regime represents a paradoxical situation: it would send out the message to A1 Assad to not attack his own population, but on the other hand, ttacking Syria might also harm this same population that the international community wants safe. In the past decade, the US has perfected precision strikes and technological research has allowed drones to be extremely effective and precise. These types of strikes have been used to kill A1-Qaeda members for example and have proved to limit civilian deaths, which is ideal. Out of 3100 registered deaths from drone precision strikes, 17% only have been civilians.
This seems great compared to the 30% to 80% of eported civilian deaths with conventional military strikes. The precision strike would probably not kill civilians on the spot but what is scary to me is the unstable nature of the sarin gas itself. If a Syrian military base was to be striked in order to send out a message, the civilians could still be harmed. Indeed, Sarin is extremely volatile; it is conserved in a liquid state for safety but once security features are damaged or voluntarily taken away, sarin reaches its gaseous state and then attacks the nervous system.
The gas could be deadly if inhaled by civilians or if they have skin contact with the gas. Even worse, the gas stays active for close to half an hour and its spread is incontrollable ounce it’s been in contact with civilians’ clothes for example. Therefore, I firmly believe that the international community should think twice before ordering strikes on Syria; it might actually be safer for the population. A point regarding law: Laws are set to deter negative behaviour by retaliating with consequences.
Laws would never be respected if there were no negative incentives or consequences to scare possible criminals off. For the legal system to operate correctly, the consequences nave to De serious ana constant. I nereTore, not punlsnlng syrla would give the impression that there is no order and no consequences for similar acts. For this reason, the United States must stay constant with their original statement and impose consequences as they had said before. A point regarding social sciences (economics):
Some say that the bombing of Syria, which is in proximity of major oil exporters, could affect the international price for oil. This rise would have a negative impact on the west, which is dependant of this resource and has no control over its price. For this simple reason, the west would not be economically advantaged if they were to strike and the solution would rather be more pacific. A moral point: Is there a difference between killing 100 people with chemical weapons or killing 100 people with bombs?