>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

>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)