3 ms·
The wikipedia article for sarin gas is also extremely frightening, but the example Bret gives of the Tokyo subway attack shows that it’s probably less effective
by smogcutter 6y ago
The wikipedia article for sarin gas is also extremely frightening, but the example Bret gives of the Tokyo subway attack shows that it’s probably less effective than advertised in a modern military context. The bar isn’t “is this stuff deadly”, it’s is it deadly enough to overcome the expense, complication, and incompatibility with highly mobile modern doctrine to make it worth using on a militarily relevant scale over conventional options.
I’m certainly no expert, so I’m not going to go any further with “is this poison poisonous enough”, but that wikipedia article at least doesn’t seem to make the case.
- sandworm101 6y agoThe tokyo attack was unprofessional. A military attack would be exponentially more effective. Sarin is also tame compared to some of the more nasty stuff out there.
- jcranmer 6y agoHow would militaries be exponentially more effective? As far as I'm aware, the military can't magically change the laws of gaseous diffusion.
- Retric 6y agoA major avenue of research in chemical weapons was efficient delivery. https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/delivery.html https://fas.org/programs/bio/chemweapons/delivery.html But to simplify, you don’t just release a gas on it’s own you need a dispersal system like an explosive.
- a1369209993 6y agoWell, yes, that's kind of the point: given the ability to deliver a explosive to your enemy's position, what makes it worthwhile to include (generally expensive and inconvenient to tranport) chemical weapon material rather than additional explosive and maybe some shrapnel. If it's that the area remains dangerous longer, then congrats, you have impaired your own ability to maneuver into or through that area once the enemy retreats.
- Retric 6y agoWWII shows the absolutely mind boggling amount of bombs you can drop on an area without actually killing that many people. After buildings have already been hit once they make repeated strikes less effective. Chemical weapons are pound for pound vastly more deadly, especially as a follow up and more importantly disable people tying up resources for medical treatment and evacuation. The most recent example is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack which killed or incapacitated ~5,000 with a few rockets. It also acted at least in the short term as area denial which can be extremely useful. PS: In terms of fighting a near parity army, simply using tents separated by sandbag walls makes bombs or rocket strikes significantly less effective. Add even the threat of chemical weapons and things become significantly more difficult. http://armymomstrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2-military-tent.jpg http://armymomstrong.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/2-milita...
- sandworm101 6y agoMilitary munitions are engineered dispersal devices. They do a far far better job than plastic bags and umbrellas.
- cortesoft 6y agoIs it nastier than a conventional explosive weapon, though, at least for military purposes?
- sandworm101 6y agoYes. A conventional explosive kills in the immediate area. These things pollute, killing for days/weeks/months.