2 ms·
"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 d
by 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.