4 ms·

As Syria’s use of chemical weapons has shown, those treaties simply aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.

ISL 9y ago
As the general lack of widespread usage of chemical weapons since WWI (yes, there are notable exceptions, including the Iran-Iraq war) would suggest, those treaties have prevented a whole lot of human suffering. Imagine what Vietnam would have been like if both sides had used chemical weapons extensively.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  We did use chemical weapons, just not organophosphate nerve agents, vessicants, and choking agents. Instead we used defoliants, which just happen to also be carcinogenic and teratogenic agents. Besides, chemical weapons are for urban and open battlefield use, they would be counterproductive in a jungle. You know why we don’t use them? They suck. Even in WWI, after people figured out what they were about, casualties from chemical agents were never as extreme as in their initial deployment. Militaries train and equip soldiers to handle chemical agents, which rely on favorable atmospheric conditions as well. What chemical weapons are good at doing is murdering civilians, especially the very young and very old. They’re a terror weapon with minimal utility beyond killing people who were never going to fight you anyhow. So no, we didn’t use them in Vietnam, we used daisy cutters and napalm and iron bombs, not because they’re kinder, but because they’re efficacious. Laws against white phosphorous and other incendiary weapons hasn’t altered their prevalence, because they work. Depleted Uranium, megatons of lead, and other horrific pollutants, not to mention land mines are still wildly popular because they work as intended. That they also decimate populations for years after conflict ends doesn’t matter to people, just that they work. Don’t kid yourself.
  - lsc 9y ago
    >You know why we don’t use them? They suck. Even in WWI, after people figured out what they were about, casualties from chemical agents were never as extreme as in their initial deployment. Militaries train and equip soldiers to handle chemical agents, which rely on favorable atmospheric conditions as well. My understanding is that chemical weapons are largely effective in that they force your enemy to run around in protective gear; you shouldn't measure direct casualties so much as how much time and effort is spent dealing with it. From reading the world war one era literature, chemical weapons have an outsized effect on morale. Really, I think the reasons for not using chemical weapons in world war two are more similar to the reasons why even small nukes haven't been used since world war two; sure, there, are have been plenty of situations where tactical nukes would have made sense from a tactical perspective... but there's a certain psychology involved, I think; Using a chemical weapon is crossing a line in a way that using a landmine is not, in the same way that using a small tactical nuke to destroy a bunker is crossing a line in the same way that using a MOAB is not. (I do think the landmine example is interesting just 'cause you can make an argument that landmines are more likely to cause unintentional casualties after the conflict has ended than most chemical agents, and yet chemical warfare is over the line, while landmines are not)

ISL 9y ago

As the general lack of widespread usage of chemical weapons since WWI (yes, there are notable exceptions, including the Iran-Iraq war) would suggest, those treaties have prevented a whole lot of human suffering. Imagine what Vietnam would have been like if both sides had used chemical weapons extensively.

IntronExon 9y ago
We did use chemical weapons, just not organophosphate nerve agents, vessicants, and choking agents. Instead we used defoliants, which just happen to also be carcinogenic and teratogenic agents. Besides, chemical weapons are for urban and open battlefield use, they would be counterproductive in a jungle. You know why we don’t use them? They suck. Even in WWI, after people figured out what they were about, casualties from chemical agents were never as extreme as in their initial deployment. Militaries train and equip soldiers to handle chemical agents, which rely on favorable atmospheric conditions as well. What chemical weapons are good at doing is murdering civilians, especially the very young and very old. They’re a terror weapon with minimal utility beyond killing people who were never going to fight you anyhow. So no, we didn’t use them in Vietnam, we used daisy cutters and napalm and iron bombs, not because they’re kinder, but because they’re efficacious. Laws against white phosphorous and other incendiary weapons hasn’t altered their prevalence, because they work. Depleted Uranium, megatons of lead, and other horrific pollutants, not to mention land mines are still wildly popular because they work as intended. That they also decimate populations for years after conflict ends doesn’t matter to people, just that they work. Don’t kid yourself.
- lsc 9y ago
  >You know why we don’t use them? They suck. Even in WWI, after people figured out what they were about, casualties from chemical agents were never as extreme as in their initial deployment. Militaries train and equip soldiers to handle chemical agents, which rely on favorable atmospheric conditions as well. My understanding is that chemical weapons are largely effective in that they force your enemy to run around in protective gear; you shouldn't measure direct casualties so much as how much time and effort is spent dealing with it. From reading the world war one era literature, chemical weapons have an outsized effect on morale. Really, I think the reasons for not using chemical weapons in world war two are more similar to the reasons why even small nukes haven't been used since world war two; sure, there, are have been plenty of situations where tactical nukes would have made sense from a tactical perspective... but there's a certain psychology involved, I think; Using a chemical weapon is crossing a line in a way that using a landmine is not, in the same way that using a small tactical nuke to destroy a bunker is crossing a line in the same way that using a MOAB is not. (I do think the landmine example is interesting just 'cause you can make an argument that landmines are more likely to cause unintentional casualties after the conflict has ended than most chemical agents, and yet chemical warfare is over the line, while landmines are not)