Sure, but the state of mind someone has to be in in order to ask such a question, and multiple times at that! Even if it's just from a legal standpoint, I would figure the answer is obvious. Here is one, why can't we use chemical warfare to eradicate our enemies? I mean, it's way more effective than boots on the ground, we go in, deploy the gas, and watch everyone choke on their own lung juices like an exterminator in a room full of cockroaches. Simple, effective and undeniably cheaper than completely scorching everything.
This is a legitimate question, a legal one, not a moral one.
Sure, but the state of mind someone has to be in in order to ask such a question, and multiple times at that! Even if it's just from a legal standpoint, I would figure the answer is obvious. Here is one, why can't we use chemical warfare to eradicate our enemies? I mean, it's way more effective than boots on the ground, we go in, deploy the gas, and watch everyone choke on their own lung juices like an exterminator in a room full of cockroaches. Simple, effective and undeniably cheaper than completely scorching everything.
Well I prefer neutron bombs, but that's just me. I am always dubious of these stories, and suspect there is more behind them.
For maximum amount of pain and suffering, those are definitely the way to go!