29 ms·

Like chemical weapons?

tsimionescu 5y ago
Chemical weapons were easily banned because they are almost entirely useless as long as you have access to conventional weapons. They are expensive to store, very inefficient for actually killing the opposition, easy to guard against, have a higher chance of turning back on you, and will slow your advance if you use them in an attack. They are at best a tool for terror or desperation. Think about the Tokyo metro attacks and, not to minimize the tragedy, but how many more lives would have been lost if they had detonated similar quantities of explosives instead of spreading sarin gas - and that is inside a closed tube, with no protection whatsoever and with most victims receiving no medical care until many hours later, as hospitals were entirely unprepared for a gas attack.
- brokenmachine 5y ago
  Good points. I do wonder about next-gen chemical/genetic weapons that advanced countries could create with the motivation though. Like some crazy airborne virus but only the good guys™ have the antidote/vaccine. >how many more lives would have been lost if they had detonated similar quantities of explosives Wasn't it just a few guys with suitcases, and I think one of them didn't even puncture the container? With conventional weapons there might be more deaths but maybe not.
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    It's possible, but still unlikely to be as effective or safe as bombing your target to the ground. > Wasn't it just a few guys with suitcases, and I think one of them didn't even puncture the container? With conventional weapons there might be more deaths but maybe not. They had several liters of sarin gas, most of which was splashed on the ground entirely. If they had had some way to spread it as an aerosol the death toll would have been much greater, but still sarin is apparently the most volatile nerve agent, so even in liquid form it evaporates relatively quickly. Even so, if they had started a fire with a few liters of fuel, even without an explosion, they would have probably killed more than 14 people. If they had pulled out guns, or detonated bombs, the death toll would certainly have been worse.
- tinus_hn 5y ago
  Chemical weapons are banned but I doubt most governments do not have access to them, ‘in case someone else uses them’

Chemical weapons were easily banned because they are almost entirely useless as long as you have access to conventional weapons. They are expensive to store, very inefficient for actually killing the opposition, easy to guard against, have a higher chance of turning back on you, and will slow your advance if you use them in an attack. They are at best a tool for terror or desperation. Think about the Tokyo metro attacks and, not to minimize the tragedy, but how many more lives would have been lost if they had detonated similar quantities of explosives instead of spreading sarin gas - and that is inside a closed tube, with no protection whatsoever and with most victims receiving no medical care until many hours later, as hospitals were entirely unprepared for a gas attack.

brokenmachine 5y ago
Good points. I do wonder about next-gen chemical/genetic weapons that advanced countries could create with the motivation though. Like some crazy airborne virus but only the good guys™ have the antidote/vaccine. >how many more lives would have been lost if they had detonated similar quantities of explosives Wasn't it just a few guys with suitcases, and I think one of them didn't even puncture the container? With conventional weapons there might be more deaths but maybe not.
- tsimionescu 5y ago
  It's possible, but still unlikely to be as effective or safe as bombing your target to the ground. > Wasn't it just a few guys with suitcases, and I think one of them didn't even puncture the container? With conventional weapons there might be more deaths but maybe not. They had several liters of sarin gas, most of which was splashed on the ground entirely. If they had had some way to spread it as an aerosol the death toll would have been much greater, but still sarin is apparently the most volatile nerve agent, so even in liquid form it evaporates relatively quickly. Even so, if they had started a fire with a few liters of fuel, even without an explosion, they would have probably killed more than 14 people. If they had pulled out guns, or detonated bombs, the death toll would certainly have been worse.
tinus_hn 5y ago
Chemical weapons are banned but I doubt most governments do not have access to them, ‘in case someone else uses them’