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-sho

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.