3 ms·

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 c

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 5y 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 5y 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.

rich_sasha 5y 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 5y 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.