3 ms·

The whole “you can’t gas my troops, but you can shoot them or blow them up, or burn them to death with a flame thrower, seems pretty contrived. World War II di

The whole “you can’t gas my troops, but you can shoot them or blow them up, or burn them to death with a flame thrower, seems pretty contrived. World War II didn’t have gas, but it was still pretty horrific.

whatshisface 5y ago
An example more relevant to recent memory would be, "I won't torture and kill my POWs if you don't torture and kill yours." They're not grandstanding or moralizing, they're making an agreement.
throwanem 5y ago
World War II didn't have gas because it was tactically and strategically useless, not because of international conventions. Mass bombing and firebombing of civilian targets contravenes international conventions too, but that didn't perceptibly slow anyone down, especially after the Axis powers very helpfully did it first. Ultimately there are no laws in war save vae victis, and while I believe the attribution of the idea to Bismarck is only apocryphal, I agree that the best and only way to curtail the brutality of warfare is to make war with maximum intensity in the cause of making war maximally short - if you can possibly manage it, by not having a war at all. I think Americans are unable to really understand this, and I think that's because our history offers only two examples, none remotely within living memory, of what it's like to have a war here. It's easy for us to think about making war because, with the exception of those who actually participate and are no longer conscripted in any case - and thus whatever happens to them can be trivially written off by those inclined as "what they signed up for" - we never have to fear that anyone will bring war home. Hitler couldn't even get an invasion across the English Channel; who's going to get one across an ocean? The sole exception is nuclear warfare via intercontinental missile, and indeed we find this a uniquely horrifying concept in the American psyche, even now. In theory that's because of radiation, but I don't think that's so; I think it is because that's the only plausible mechanism by which we need fear anyone bombing our cities, and that is something we never needed fear before. And it is worthy of note that, whatever the diplomatic exertions required to ensure this does not occur, we have always been willing to pursue them as tirelessly as the occasion has required.
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
  > Ultimately there are no laws in war save vae victis, and while I believe the attribution of the idea to Bismarck is only apocryphal, I agree that the best and only way to curtail the brutality of warfare is to make war with maximum intensity in the cause of making war maximally short - if you can possibly manage it, by not having a war at all. I agree. Pretending that we can have a “clean” war just makes war more likely and makes wars drag on ultimately killing even more people and causing more destruction in the long term.
- usrusr 5y ago
  "World War II didn't have gas because it was tactically and strategically useless" Do you really believe that? That would imply that if one side side started doing it, the other would have just laughed at their waste of resources and continue enjoying the benefits of doing without. I don't think that this is what would have happened. Tactical and strategical situations weren't as "inviting" for gas attacks as the endless stalemates of ww1, but useless? I don't think so. The game of eye for an eye does not need any international conventions. An important caveat in all intensity for shortness tradeoffs is that the entire argument breaks down if the change can be negated by the other side doing the same.
  - throwanem 5y ago
    > Do you really believe that? Yes. Why not? I mentioned the firebombing of cities earlier. Fire makes more fire, but gas doesn't make more gas. That disposes of strategic utility, and on the tactical side, mobile warfare in armored vehicles largely obviates any benefit. Besides, it's not like, in total warfare, the production of chemical weapons at industrial scale doesn't require resources that could otherwise be put to purposes and weapons that aren't so narrowly contingent in their potential benefits - for one example, incendiaries. > That would imply that if one side started doing it, the other would have just laughed at their waste of resources and continue enjoying the benefits of doing without. No, it wouldn't; of course if one side had started doing it others would have matched the escalation, just as with strategic bombing. Why do you think no side started? I like to hope at this point we've disposed of the idea that it was out of the goodness of their hearts.
edanm 5y ago
> World War II didn’t have gas [...] Ummm, what now? 6 million Jews and other groups would disagree with that. Ok, I'm being a little quippy, obviously you weren't referring to the Holocaust, rather to the actual war. But I think there are actual reasons the world bans certain forms of warfare. They really are worse, in various ways. E.g. chemical weapons, as far as can tell, are worse to die from than a gunshot, leave more and worse long-term damage for people that didn't die, are worse to watch so leave worse psychological damage to survivors, etc. The world largely agrees that this is a more barbaric way to kill someone. And you know what? The world coming together to decide that some things are too barbaric, so we won't use them, is a pretty good outcome. Less ways to kill each other is a good thing! I wish people extended this to more forms of warfare, not less. (There are also game-theoretic reasons to police certain things more than others. You can't possibly ban every form of warfare, at least now - but if everyone agrees to be super-harsh against anyone using certain methods, we can at least stop those methods from being used. Just a diffuse "super harsh on anyone doing warfare" isn't feasible and won't have an affect, but a directed "super harsh on anyone using chemical weapons" actually might lower the body count, which again, is a good thing!)

whatshisface 5y ago

An example more relevant to recent memory would be, "I won't torture and kill my POWs if you don't torture and kill yours." They're not grandstanding or moralizing, they're making an agreement.

throwanem 5y ago

World War II didn't have gas because it was tactically and strategically useless, not because of international conventions. Mass bombing and firebombing of civilian targets contravenes international conventions too, but that didn't perceptibly slow anyone down, especially after the Axis powers very helpfully did it first. Ultimately there are no laws in war save vae victis, and while I believe the attribution of the idea to Bismarck is only apocryphal, I agree that the best and only way to curtail the brutality of warfare is to make war with maximum intensity in the cause of making war maximally short - if you can possibly manage it, by not having a war at all. I think Americans are unable to really understand this, and I think that's because our history offers only two examples, none remotely within living memory, of what it's like to have a war here. It's easy for us to think about making war because, with the exception of those who actually participate and are no longer conscripted in any case - and thus whatever happens to them can be trivially written off by those inclined as "what they signed up for" - we never have to fear that anyone will bring war home. Hitler couldn't even get an invasion across the English Channel; who's going to get one across an ocean? The sole exception is nuclear warfare via intercontinental missile, and indeed we find this a uniquely horrifying concept in the American psyche, even now. In theory that's because of radiation, but I don't think that's so; I think it is because that's the only plausible mechanism by which we need fear anyone bombing our cities, and that is something we never needed fear before. And it is worthy of note that, whatever the diplomatic exertions required to ensure this does not occur, we have always been willing to pursue them as tirelessly as the occasion has required.

RcouF1uZ4gsC 5y ago
> Ultimately there are no laws in war save vae victis, and while I believe the attribution of the idea to Bismarck is only apocryphal, I agree that the best and only way to curtail the brutality of warfare is to make war with maximum intensity in the cause of making war maximally short - if you can possibly manage it, by not having a war at all. I agree. Pretending that we can have a “clean” war just makes war more likely and makes wars drag on ultimately killing even more people and causing more destruction in the long term.
usrusr 5y ago
"World War II didn't have gas because it was tactically and strategically useless" Do you really believe that? That would imply that if one side side started doing it, the other would have just laughed at their waste of resources and continue enjoying the benefits of doing without. I don't think that this is what would have happened. Tactical and strategical situations weren't as "inviting" for gas attacks as the endless stalemates of ww1, but useless? I don't think so. The game of eye for an eye does not need any international conventions. An important caveat in all intensity for shortness tradeoffs is that the entire argument breaks down if the change can be negated by the other side doing the same.
- throwanem 5y ago
  > Do you really believe that? Yes. Why not? I mentioned the firebombing of cities earlier. Fire makes more fire, but gas doesn't make more gas. That disposes of strategic utility, and on the tactical side, mobile warfare in armored vehicles largely obviates any benefit. Besides, it's not like, in total warfare, the production of chemical weapons at industrial scale doesn't require resources that could otherwise be put to purposes and weapons that aren't so narrowly contingent in their potential benefits - for one example, incendiaries. > That would imply that if one side started doing it, the other would have just laughed at their waste of resources and continue enjoying the benefits of doing without. No, it wouldn't; of course if one side had started doing it others would have matched the escalation, just as with strategic bombing. Why do you think no side started? I like to hope at this point we've disposed of the idea that it was out of the goodness of their hearts.

edanm 5y ago

> World War II didn’t have gas [...] Ummm, what now? 6 million Jews and other groups would disagree with that. Ok, I'm being a little quippy, obviously you weren't referring to the Holocaust, rather to the actual war. But I think there are actual reasons the world bans certain forms of warfare. They really are worse, in various ways. E.g. chemical weapons, as far as can tell, are worse to die from than a gunshot, leave more and worse long-term damage for people that didn't die, are worse to watch so leave worse psychological damage to survivors, etc. The world largely agrees that this is a more barbaric way to kill someone. And you know what? The world coming together to decide that some things are too barbaric, so we won't use them, is a pretty good outcome. Less ways to kill each other is a good thing! I wish people extended this to more forms of warfare, not less. (There are also game-theoretic reasons to police certain things more than others. You can't possibly ban every form of warfare, at least now - but if everyone agrees to be super-harsh against anyone using certain methods, we can at least stop those methods from being used. Just a diffuse "super harsh on anyone doing warfare" isn't feasible and won't have an affect, but a directed "super harsh on anyone using chemical weapons" actually might lower the body count, which again, is a good thing!)