4 ms·

As an ex south korean army (mandatory service), our neighbor in the north still think chemical weapon an effective asymmetrical weapon against us because our sm

As an ex south korean army (mandatory service), our neighbor in the north still think chemical weapon an effective asymmetrical weapon against us because our small piece of land won't really allow any mobility based modern warfare. There are outposts throughout all the borderline. We do quite a lot of training to protect against chemical attacks and also the protective respiration devices are included for every soldiers. The most probable attack against us will begin with spreading chemical gas on air to crush the first defense line in the borderline. If situation become really bad and raw - killing all the civilians - chemical weapon would still be a very effective weapon I think.

brazzy 7y ago
> If situation become really bad and raw - killing all the civilians - chemical weapon would still be a very effective weapon I think. The article argues pretty convincingly that this is not actually true, since they are just not as effective as high explosives at killing people. They are possibly more effective at terrorizing the population into surrendering.
- 23B1 7y ago
  > terrorizing the population into surrendering. This is asymmetrical warfare in a nutshell
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    Except terrorizing a population into surrendering hasn't proven to be an effective tactic in history. I'm struggling to think of a single case where it actually happened.
    - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
      While terrorism (going by the classical definition) hasn’t had had any (or many?) victories of that sort - let’s not pretend that acts of terrorism don’t achieve political goals - and if nothing else they make the people in charge sit-up and take notice. There’s only one example I can comfortably talk about: I don’t believe Devolution and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland would have come about if it weren’t for the shadow of the IRA looming over Westminster.
      - redis_mlc 7y ago
        My understanding is that US envoys and a moderator was the main reason for the ceasefire.
        clacke2 7y ago
        Would they have even been there if not for the terrorism?
    - eecc 7y ago
      Uhm, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
- alexpotato 7y ago
  One of the big realizations from World War Two was that plans that involved civilian bombing to "break the spirit" of an enemy population had the opposite effect. Since the bombing only killed a small percentage of the population, the surviving population felt almost euphoric. This reminded me of two quotes: "There is no better feeling than having someone shoot at you and miss!" - Winston Churchill "Combat isn't where you might die -- though that does happen -- it's where you find out whether you get to keep on living. Don't underestimate the power of that revelation. Don't underestimate the things young men will wager in order to play that game one more time." -Sebastian Junger This will probably also lead to a wave of euphoria once COVID-19 has passed on.

brazzy 7y ago

> If situation become really bad and raw - killing all the civilians - chemical weapon would still be a very effective weapon I think. The article argues pretty convincingly that this is not actually true, since they are just not as effective as high explosives at killing people. They are possibly more effective at terrorizing the population into surrendering.

23B1 7y ago
> terrorizing the population into surrendering. This is asymmetrical warfare in a nutshell
- jcranmer 7y ago
  Except terrorizing a population into surrendering hasn't proven to be an effective tactic in history. I'm struggling to think of a single case where it actually happened.
  - DaiPlusPlus 7y ago
    While terrorism (going by the classical definition) hasn’t had had any (or many?) victories of that sort - let’s not pretend that acts of terrorism don’t achieve political goals - and if nothing else they make the people in charge sit-up and take notice. There’s only one example I can comfortably talk about: I don’t believe Devolution and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland would have come about if it weren’t for the shadow of the IRA looming over Westminster.
    - redis_mlc 7y ago
      My understanding is that US envoys and a moderator was the main reason for the ceasefire.
      - clacke2 7y ago
        Would they have even been there if not for the terrorism?
  - eecc 7y ago
    Uhm, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
alexpotato 7y ago
One of the big realizations from World War Two was that plans that involved civilian bombing to "break the spirit" of an enemy population had the opposite effect. Since the bombing only killed a small percentage of the population, the surviving population felt almost euphoric. This reminded me of two quotes: "There is no better feeling than having someone shoot at you and miss!" - Winston Churchill "Combat isn't where you might die -- though that does happen -- it's where you find out whether you get to keep on living. Don't underestimate the power of that revelation. Don't underestimate the things young men will wager in order to play that game one more time." -Sebastian Junger This will probably also lead to a wave of euphoria once COVID-19 has passed on.