6 ms·

tl;dr: Because they're tactically and strategically ineffective. They can make serviceable assassination weapons, as can almost anything given the right arrange

tl;dr: Because they're tactically and strategically ineffective. They can make serviceable assassination weapons, as can almost anything given the right arrangement of circumstances, but as a tool of warfare, they suck. What I'd really like to see is an analysis from a military historian's perspective of why biological weapons are even more useless, with specific reference to current events. The tl;dr there is that they're tactically nonexistent, and strategically worse than merely ineffective because you can't control either their spread or your borders well enough to avoid them blowing back on you. Of course, I'm not so naïve as to imagine such a thing would convince anyone who needs convincing. It'd be a fun read if Mr. Devereaux did it, but I suspect it would serve neither tactical nor strategic goals in the battle against misinformation.

thedance 7y ago
Why aren't chemical weapons (for example VX) effective area denial weapons? They seem damned good for the purpose.
- donw 7y ago
  Because they deny the area to you as well. Cleaning up a minefield is child's play compared to dealing with nerve agents.
  - kjs3 7y ago
    No. Minefield can persist dangerous for decades. Nerve gas dissipates is days/weeks. Nerve agents might clear the ground tactically, but they don't hold it.
    - donw 7y ago
      Ah, I should provide context. From a tactical perspective, the minefield is easy to clear. In terms of long-term effects, the mines are definitely worse. We are still finding mines from World War II all over Europe, and it’s a huge problem in Korea as well.
      - kjs3 7y ago
        No. From a tactical perspective, minefields are very difficult to clear, especially in the short term to achieve tactical objectives. That's why they're effective. The fact they're dangerous decades later shows it's not easy.
        dogma1138 7y ago
        Minefields are also very hard to deploy they take about as much to setup as to clear.
        kjs3 7y ago
        No. Completely untrue. Minefields can be deployed by air drop or artillery over wide areas in a moment. Google FASCAM, or cluster munitions, for example. It hasn't been exclusively some guys burying them one by one by hand since WW1.
    - rodonn 7y ago
      There are solid/liquid forms that persist for much much longer. Look at the efforts UK went through to clean up after the chemical attack in Salisbury (which was a liquid in a perfume bottle).
      - kjs3 7y ago
        Interesting. I thought the extended cleanup was because the agent was derived from more stable precursors (binary agent), plus the normal overreaction to 'OMFG NERVE GAS'. But the (not conclusive) Wikipedia says the resultant agent is potent for 'years'. I doubt that kind of chemistry stays potent for that long in the wild, but it's by no means my area to judge. I don't think it changes the strategic or tactical view, but yeah...the thought of a year persistent toxic dead zone is unpleasant.
      - vilhelm_s 7y ago
        Even the most long-lasting ones will still evaporate in a few weeks. (Of course, if it's inside a bottle it will not evaporate, and if it's inside a city you probably want to decontaminate it rather than wait).
        rodonn 7y ago
        It's a bit hard to say for sure since it is all classified info for the most part. This article cites one of the creators for claiming it could last for years https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/novichok-nerve-agent-how-salisbury-amesbury-incident-happen-explained-latest-a8433166.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/novichok-nerve-ag...
  - thedance 7y ago
    This is an argument against area denial doctrine, not an argument against chemical weapons as agents of area denial.
- mattmanser 7y ago
  He addressed that in the article really well. He argues modern, well trained, armies that constantly move with devolved command structures can't effectively use chemical weapons, and on top of that if fighting against a comparable opponent chemical weapon protection is cheap. Even when under existential threat those type of armies haven't used them. Temporarily denying an area doesn't work with a mobile army, you might deny yourself an opening or you might not even know where your units are. But poorly trained armies, with no independent command because of the coup potential can kind of use them as they get into 'static' fights, and have done, i.e. Iraq and Syria. It really is an excellent article, though long, I would recommend reading it. And it really drives the point home that the idea we got civilized and banned them is a fuzzy PR lie we tell ourselves.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  For a VX-contaminated area, you can put your troops in NBC-ready vehicles (which most of your vehicles are) and simply drive through it. You can't do that for a minefield.
adventured 7y ago
> why biological weapons are even more useless ... they're tactically nonexistent, and strategically worse than merely ineffective because you can't control either their spread or your borders well enough to avoid them blowing back on you. That's only true if all nations are identical. Which is another way of saying that it's never true. Unless it's a global extinction biological weapon, there would be winners and losers when it's over. It could be acceptable to use (risk vs reward) if you believed your nation would endure far better than your rivals. If you believed you could get back up faster; that it weakens your rivals long enough, and substantially enough, to give you a path to hegemony. If you believed you could lock your society down better to protect it while the rivals were ravaged. The US for example had that manner of booster path after WW2. It's not that the US didn't suffer in WW2, it suffered quite a bit, but far less than other major powers, particularly in terms of post war domestic conditions (vast manufacturing and export capabilities ready to go). It helped catapult the US to primary superpower status. Historically speaking, what major nations haven't wanted that position? Some even have cultural beliefs, like manifest destiny, that motivate the culture toward it.
- FillardMillmore 7y ago
  I'm not sure that it's entirely accurate to claim that manifest destiny was a "cultural belief" (or at least, it doesn't tell the whole story), as that would imply a large form of consensus within the culture in regards to the belief. Many prominent Americans of the time, Whigs, and eventually the early Republicans believed that, rather than making their mission of expansion one of conquest, to expand by way of democratic example. Though "manifest destiny" was, for all intents and purposes, a "cultural belief", I think it's worth noting that there were many people in said culture who were vocally opposed to the idea and the actions the acceptance of such an idea would motivate.
- ip26 7y ago
  Even if it worked out for the country in the end, it seems like those in power would hesitate to create such upheaval. Hard to hang on to the reins of power when the world turns upside down.
golem14 7y ago
Well, hypothetically speaking, a state might have secretly mass vaccinated it’s population against its engineered bioweapon(eg hidden in tdmr vaccine). But I agree many things might go wrong with such a scheme. More of a plot device for bond movies...

thedance 7y ago

Why aren't chemical weapons (for example VX) effective area denial weapons? They seem damned good for the purpose.

donw 7y ago
Because they deny the area to you as well. Cleaning up a minefield is child's play compared to dealing with nerve agents.
- kjs3 7y ago
  No. Minefield can persist dangerous for decades. Nerve gas dissipates is days/weeks. Nerve agents might clear the ground tactically, but they don't hold it.
  - donw 7y ago
    Ah, I should provide context. From a tactical perspective, the minefield is easy to clear. In terms of long-term effects, the mines are definitely worse. We are still finding mines from World War II all over Europe, and it’s a huge problem in Korea as well.
    - kjs3 7y ago
      No. From a tactical perspective, minefields are very difficult to clear, especially in the short term to achieve tactical objectives. That's why they're effective. The fact they're dangerous decades later shows it's not easy.
      - dogma1138 7y ago
        Minefields are also very hard to deploy they take about as much to setup as to clear.
        kjs3 7y ago
        No. Completely untrue. Minefields can be deployed by air drop or artillery over wide areas in a moment. Google FASCAM, or cluster munitions, for example. It hasn't been exclusively some guys burying them one by one by hand since WW1.
  - rodonn 7y ago
    There are solid/liquid forms that persist for much much longer. Look at the efforts UK went through to clean up after the chemical attack in Salisbury (which was a liquid in a perfume bottle).
    - kjs3 7y ago
      Interesting. I thought the extended cleanup was because the agent was derived from more stable precursors (binary agent), plus the normal overreaction to 'OMFG NERVE GAS'. But the (not conclusive) Wikipedia says the resultant agent is potent for 'years'. I doubt that kind of chemistry stays potent for that long in the wild, but it's by no means my area to judge. I don't think it changes the strategic or tactical view, but yeah...the thought of a year persistent toxic dead zone is unpleasant.
    - vilhelm_s 7y ago
      Even the most long-lasting ones will still evaporate in a few weeks. (Of course, if it's inside a bottle it will not evaporate, and if it's inside a city you probably want to decontaminate it rather than wait).
      - rodonn 7y ago
        It's a bit hard to say for sure since it is all classified info for the most part. This article cites one of the creators for claiming it could last for years https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/novichok-nerve-agent-how-salisbury-amesbury-incident-happen-explained-latest-a8433166.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/novichok-nerve-ag...
- thedance 7y ago
  This is an argument against area denial doctrine, not an argument against chemical weapons as agents of area denial.
mattmanser 7y ago
He addressed that in the article really well. He argues modern, well trained, armies that constantly move with devolved command structures can't effectively use chemical weapons, and on top of that if fighting against a comparable opponent chemical weapon protection is cheap. Even when under existential threat those type of armies haven't used them. Temporarily denying an area doesn't work with a mobile army, you might deny yourself an opening or you might not even know where your units are. But poorly trained armies, with no independent command because of the coup potential can kind of use them as they get into 'static' fights, and have done, i.e. Iraq and Syria. It really is an excellent article, though long, I would recommend reading it. And it really drives the point home that the idea we got civilized and banned them is a fuzzy PR lie we tell ourselves.
PeterisP 7y ago
For a VX-contaminated area, you can put your troops in NBC-ready vehicles (which most of your vehicles are) and simply drive through it. You can't do that for a minefield.

adventured 7y ago

> why biological weapons are even more useless ... they're tactically nonexistent, and strategically worse than merely ineffective because you can't control either their spread or your borders well enough to avoid them blowing back on you. That's only true if all nations are identical. Which is another way of saying that it's never true. Unless it's a global extinction biological weapon, there would be winners and losers when it's over. It could be acceptable to use (risk vs reward) if you believed your nation would endure far better than your rivals. If you believed you could get back up faster; that it weakens your rivals long enough, and substantially enough, to give you a path to hegemony. If you believed you could lock your society down better to protect it while the rivals were ravaged. The US for example had that manner of booster path after WW2. It's not that the US didn't suffer in WW2, it suffered quite a bit, but far less than other major powers, particularly in terms of post war domestic conditions (vast manufacturing and export capabilities ready to go). It helped catapult the US to primary superpower status. Historically speaking, what major nations haven't wanted that position? Some even have cultural beliefs, like manifest destiny, that motivate the culture toward it.

FillardMillmore 7y ago
I'm not sure that it's entirely accurate to claim that manifest destiny was a "cultural belief" (or at least, it doesn't tell the whole story), as that would imply a large form of consensus within the culture in regards to the belief. Many prominent Americans of the time, Whigs, and eventually the early Republicans believed that, rather than making their mission of expansion one of conquest, to expand by way of democratic example. Though "manifest destiny" was, for all intents and purposes, a "cultural belief", I think it's worth noting that there were many people in said culture who were vocally opposed to the idea and the actions the acceptance of such an idea would motivate.
ip26 7y ago
Even if it worked out for the country in the end, it seems like those in power would hesitate to create such upheaval. Hard to hang on to the reins of power when the world turns upside down.

golem14 7y ago

Well, hypothetically speaking, a state might have secretly mass vaccinated it’s population against its engineered bioweapon(eg hidden in tdmr vaccine). But I agree many things might go wrong with such a scheme. More of a plot device for bond movies...