4 ms·

That cynic would be wrong since chemical weapons are extremely effective in combat. When the scales aren't even (i.e. something like the vietnam war) the stron

by munk-a 6y ago

That cynic would be wrong since chemical weapons are extremely effective in combat. When the scales aren't even (i.e. something like the vietnam war) the stronger side can afford equipment that allows their soldiers to operate effectively while the other side is unable to respond to aggression greatly lowering expected casualties. With powers on par you still have the factor of well coordinated chemical attacks allowing breakthroughs to be executed much easier. Chemical weapons being banned is an example of a mostly inexplicably altruistic action on the part of major powers. Well, inexplicable if you're a cynic.

dmitriid 6y ago
> That cynic would be wrong since chemical weapons are extremely effective in combat. They are not. It's the most ineffective weapon outside swords and bows. A sibling comment provided the link discussing it: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...
saiya-jin 6y ago
Yes and no. There was still Agent orange in Vietnam. There is still uranium ammo in ie A-10 Warthog which provably sows all kinds of cancer and deformities in children being born in the area decades after usage. Not poisonous gases that burn your lungs per se, but generally if the deal is too sweet to refuse, it stays on the table for some time.
- rich_sasha 6y ago
  These aren’t really chemical weapons. They have a non-“chemical” primary use, and also happen to be toxic. Depleted uranium will harm people, but in timescales useless in a war (unless it hits them fast, that is). Also, surely, none of those are anywhere near as bad as mustard gas. Yes, agent orange gives people cancer, but presumably not everyone (?), and anyway mustard gas immediately burns your lungs. That’s just a different league.
  - munk-a 6y ago
    Depleted uranium is actually a bit disfavored since most of the harm from handling the ammunition actually falls on the military using it. You get shot with a cannon round once, but someone needed to load and carry that round for days on end - it does have some really unfortunate side effects if it remains perpetually in an environment but it isn't enriched - it's depleted and, honestly, landmines are still a thing and cause way more damage. My understanding is that DU tends to be favored for three primary reasons(ish) 1. It's super dense and thus packs a super hard punch in terms of momentum you can slug at a distance for a given caliber barrel. 2. It's incredibly hard and can deflect things that steel can't stand a chance against. 3. That momentum from firing is often high enough that it actually ignites on impact in most circumstances, causing a lot more material damage to whatever you're shooting. DU might honestly be phased out soon anyways - it's primary strengths are that it's wicked heavy and not stupid soft like lead, but there are some replacements out there for it and a lot of countries have signed on to banning it in warfare - just not the big ones yet.
mywittyname 6y ago
Chemical weapons are great when you have a long line of densely packed, dug in troops. But much less so against modern armies that don't operate shoulder-to-shoulder and carry protection with them. They are very effective against civilian populations though. Which is likely the real reason behind the ban. Especially when you consider that certain chemical weapons are only selectively banned; they can't be used against a target for toxicity, but it's completely fine to use it to use it in another manner. White phosphorous is most famous example if this, it's a war crime to poison people with it, but a-okay to light them on fire with it, even though that's a horrific way to die. The only explanation for this hypocrisy is that chemical weapons don't have much value against military targets anymore. So substances are banned unless they are actually useful in other capacities.

by munk-a 6y ago

dmitriid 6y ago

> That cynic would be wrong since chemical weapons are extremely effective in combat. They are not. It's the most ineffective weapon outside swords and bows. A sibling comment provided the link discussing it: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...

saiya-jin 6y ago

Yes and no. There was still Agent orange in Vietnam. There is still uranium ammo in ie A-10 Warthog which provably sows all kinds of cancer and deformities in children being born in the area decades after usage. Not poisonous gases that burn your lungs per se, but generally if the deal is too sweet to refuse, it stays on the table for some time.

rich_sasha 6y ago
These aren’t really chemical weapons. They have a non-“chemical” primary use, and also happen to be toxic. Depleted uranium will harm people, but in timescales useless in a war (unless it hits them fast, that is). Also, surely, none of those are anywhere near as bad as mustard gas. Yes, agent orange gives people cancer, but presumably not everyone (?), and anyway mustard gas immediately burns your lungs. That’s just a different league.
- munk-a 6y ago
  Depleted uranium is actually a bit disfavored since most of the harm from handling the ammunition actually falls on the military using it. You get shot with a cannon round once, but someone needed to load and carry that round for days on end - it does have some really unfortunate side effects if it remains perpetually in an environment but it isn't enriched - it's depleted and, honestly, landmines are still a thing and cause way more damage. My understanding is that DU tends to be favored for three primary reasons(ish) 1. It's super dense and thus packs a super hard punch in terms of momentum you can slug at a distance for a given caliber barrel. 2. It's incredibly hard and can deflect things that steel can't stand a chance against. 3. That momentum from firing is often high enough that it actually ignites on impact in most circumstances, causing a lot more material damage to whatever you're shooting. DU might honestly be phased out soon anyways - it's primary strengths are that it's wicked heavy and not stupid soft like lead, but there are some replacements out there for it and a lot of countries have signed on to banning it in warfare - just not the big ones yet.

mywittyname 6y ago

Chemical weapons are great when you have a long line of densely packed, dug in troops. But much less so against modern armies that don't operate shoulder-to-shoulder and carry protection with them. They are very effective against civilian populations though. Which is likely the real reason behind the ban. Especially when you consider that certain chemical weapons are only selectively banned; they can't be used against a target for toxicity, but it's completely fine to use it to use it in another manner. White phosphorous is most famous example if this, it's a war crime to poison people with it, but a-okay to light them on fire with it, even though that's a horrific way to die. The only explanation for this hypocrisy is that chemical weapons don't have much value against military targets anymore. So substances are banned unless they are actually useful in other capacities.