letters | in a gray area over syria

Is the type of weapon really the issue?

I haven’t made up my mind about possible responses to the Syrian situation, but I have a nagging question.

I’ve been wondering what the reaction might be if news came out that, using conventional or incendiary bombs instead of chemical weapons, President Bashar Assad bombed a large town with an air raid that killed between 100 and 1,000 civilians — men, women, and children (about the same casualty estimates from the use of chemical weapons).


Is there really a difference between using chemical weapons and using conventional ones? The phrase that keeps going through my mind is: “Dead is dead.” Does it matter so much in this scenario how they are killed?

David Mack


Loading comments...
Real journalists. Real journalism. Subscribe to The Boston Globe today.
We hope you've enjoyed your free articles.
Continue reading by subscribing to Globe.com for just 99¢.
 Already a member? Log in Home
Subscriber Log In

We hope you've enjoyed your 5 free articles'

Stay informed with unlimited access to Boston’s trusted news source.

  • High-quality journalism from the region’s largest newsroom
  • Convenient access across all of your devices
  • Today’s Headlines daily newsletter
  • Subscriber-only access to exclusive offers, events, contests, eBooks, and more
  • Less than 25¢ a week
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com
Marketing image of BostonGlobe.com