{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017774851876234364, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.495726495726496, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Problem With the Chemical Weapons Taboo

The chemical weapons taboo—the idea that chemical weapons are prohibitively abhorrent—has recently taken a leading role in international politics. In Syria, the taboo has comprised an imperative for, and justification of, U.S. interventionist behavior against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and has been the basis of diplomatic negotiations calculated to sidestep military intervention and promote peaceful resolution, so the taboo has come to define much of the political dialogue surrounding the conflict. This would seem to substantiate the inherent claim underpinning the taboo, that chemical weapons are so excessively repulsive and offensive comparative to conventional weaponry that the international community cannot tolerate or permit their use. On the surface, this would appear to be a positive; chemical weapons are potentially horrific, and their removal from a contentious conflict scenario can surely be only beneficial? Yet this essay argues this assumption is problematic: specifically, that the taboo has in fact disproportionately skewed perceptions of the crisis in Syria in ways that overlook the wider issues, particularly where this concerns the employment of conventional modes of violence and also other forms of “weapons of mass destruction” (WMD). Furthermore, the taboo has encouraged adoption of a highly limited and partial response as well as making it appear as if politicians are doing more to resolve the crisis than is actually the case.