5 ms·

They are amazingly useful in real warfare. Drop nerve gas on a city, walk in a couple days later. WMDs are the only way to really take a country by force, and o

by R0b0t1 5y ago

They are amazingly useful in real warfare. Drop nerve gas on a city, walk in a couple days later. WMDs are the only way to really take a country by force, and of all of them, chemical weapons are the most palatable and also the easiest to produce. Considering this, defense against them is at least mildly important. A proper defense only exists by considering offense, so they're still developing chemical weapons somewhere. The modern hot topic is viruses and other pathogens.

amelius 5y ago
They go against the Geneva Protocol, and it's not even allowed to stockpile them so not even useful if you are a terrorist with a death wish because then there are simpler ways to end your problems.
- csee 5y ago
  Russia used them extensively in Syria quite recently, so the concerns are valid.
  - someotherperson 5y ago
    The allegations by OPCW are politicised[0] and based on theoretical chemistry, i.e hexamine as an acid scavenger. That is to say: neither the Syrian government nor Russia have used chemical weapons in Syria. They haven't used them because they are -- for all intents and purposes -- useless. If you want to take down a group of people in flip flops and have access to a thermobaric[1] MLRS[2] you're not going to break international law so you can give one or two of them a scratchy throat with chlorine payloads (if you're lucky). [0] https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/ https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1
    - ceejayoz 5y ago
      The assertions in the Wikileaks docs are contested, and focus on a single incident when the war has had multiple. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/15/the-opcw-douma-leaks-part-1-we-need-to-talk-about-alex/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/15/the-opcw-dou... For example, that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack happened is not disputed by Russia; they dispute who did it.
      - mardifoufs 5y ago
        Bellingcat has been pretty reliable but their investigations around the chemical attacks were very... flawed. It happened for sure, but their analysis of how the events unfolded on the ground was so lacking (not their fault, OSINT can only get you so far in a chemical attack) that imo they probably should've just not published their initial articles. Doesn't mean they can't be right on the OPCW controversy, but it's still something to keep in mind But in any case, while yes there is a dispute around who did it... Russia was never claimed to be the responsible by anyone. The two options are either the syrian government or the rebels, and that's true for all the chemical attacks. So the GP was completely wrong, Russia did not use chemical warfare in syria!
        someotherperson 5y ago
        Bellingcat quite literally created the propaganda -- they teamed up with Dan Kazesta to invent the hexamine nonsense, pushed it among the neocon circles (all of the ex-Just Journalism people, Atlantic Council, Foreign Policy, Henry Jackson Society affiliates, and so on) and then wrote their own narrative. Their biggest target throughout their efforts? Ted Postol, professor emeritus of science at MIT, who they claimed was a Russian disinformation agent for finding the theoretical chemistry ridiculous and not practical.
    - RobertMiller 5y ago
      > They haven't used them because they are -- for all intents and purposes -- useless. To your point, some numbers from wikipedia: The LD50 of sarin is 39 micrograms per kilogram, so 0.0039 grams to kill a 100kg man half the time in theory. Now consider the worst of the gas attacks in Syria was in Ghouta. Fatality estimates vary considerably, but the highest estimate claims 1729 fatalities. The attack is claimed to have been performed using at least 8 rockets, likely more, each with at least 50 liters of liquid sarin. That's a lower bound of 400 liters of liquid sarin, for an upper bound of 1729 kills. Liquid sarin's density is roughly the same as water, so that works out to more than 230 grams of sarin per person killed. And if you use the lower fatality estimates or the higher rocket count estimates, the numbers are even worse. Conclusion? The delivery/dispersion of poison gas is incredibly inefficient. In practice you need tens of thousand times more nerve gas than the LD50 figures would have you naively believe.
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    Given that the Syrian war is still ongoing, that seems to debunk the idea that it's as easy as "Drop nerve gas on a city, walk in a couple days later."
  - mardifoufs 5y ago
    What?! This is not true! I've never heard anyone claiming russia did it. The mainstream consensus is that the syrian government did it, while a minority thinks it was either old stock getting released by accident or the rebels doing it. Do you have a source? Because even with all the controversy surrounding international investigation and the theories that have spawned around that, russia wasn't even a possible suspect.
someotherperson 5y ago
That's not how it works, and they're not very useful at all. The amount of actual product you need is non-trivial and at that point you might as well just use modern conventional munitions. The reason why it fell out of favour isn't because it's dangerous, it's because it was ineffective outside of TV and film.
- R0b0t1 5y ago
  That's not how it works? That's all I get? I'd refer you to the site guidelines, barging into a thread and going "NO U" is not a real conversation. A siege of a city is more impractical than it ever has been. In ancient times a siege was conducted out of necessity; it was the only way to kill everyone inside if a population did not desire subjugation. Complete death of those resisting you was typically the goal, with the slow communication of antiquity leaving any resistance might mean coming back to an army the next time you visit. It was easier to depopulate the region and move your descendants in. We see echoes of this in modern times. We "took" Kabul at extreme expense, but did not really "take" it as asymmetric enemy forces continued to operate throughout the entire country while the US occupied Afghanistan. Taking many cities across a nation with advanced embedded weaponry is going to be impossible. If it came down to it, such a country would resort to area denial, like Russia did in the Chechnya and Syria, leveling the cities instead of sweeping them. We don't see people deploying chemical WMDs not because they are too expensive but because of political reasons, and after that, because they don't have them due to disarmament treaties. All it takes is someone deciding they really want to win for all of it to change. You can deny a huge area for weeks with a few chemical warheads. You can make a city inhospitable using less materiel than it'd take to flatten it.
  - openasocket 5y ago
    I'd invite you to read the article I linked: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch... . Generally speaking, if you need to take a city you're better off using high explosives than chemical weapons. It's well researched and cites sources.

by R0b0t1 5y ago

amelius 5y ago

They go against the Geneva Protocol, and it's not even allowed to stockpile them so not even useful if you are a terrorist with a death wish because then there are simpler ways to end your problems.

csee 5y ago
Russia used them extensively in Syria quite recently, so the concerns are valid.
- someotherperson 5y ago
  The allegations by OPCW are politicised[0] and based on theoretical chemistry, i.e hexamine as an acid scavenger. That is to say: neither the Syrian government nor Russia have used chemical weapons in Syria. They haven't used them because they are -- for all intents and purposes -- useless. If you want to take down a group of people in flip flops and have access to a thermobaric[1] MLRS[2] you're not going to break international law so you can give one or two of them a scratchy throat with chlorine payloads (if you're lucky). [0] https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/ https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermobaric_weapon [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1
  - ceejayoz 5y ago
    The assertions in the Wikileaks docs are contested, and focus on a single incident when the war has had multiple. https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/15/the-opcw-douma-leaks-part-1-we-need-to-talk-about-alex/ https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2020/01/15/the-opcw-dou... For example, that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack happened is not disputed by Russia; they dispute who did it.
    - mardifoufs 5y ago
      Bellingcat has been pretty reliable but their investigations around the chemical attacks were very... flawed. It happened for sure, but their analysis of how the events unfolded on the ground was so lacking (not their fault, OSINT can only get you so far in a chemical attack) that imo they probably should've just not published their initial articles. Doesn't mean they can't be right on the OPCW controversy, but it's still something to keep in mind But in any case, while yes there is a dispute around who did it... Russia was never claimed to be the responsible by anyone. The two options are either the syrian government or the rebels, and that's true for all the chemical attacks. So the GP was completely wrong, Russia did not use chemical warfare in syria!
      - someotherperson 5y ago
        Bellingcat quite literally created the propaganda -- they teamed up with Dan Kazesta to invent the hexamine nonsense, pushed it among the neocon circles (all of the ex-Just Journalism people, Atlantic Council, Foreign Policy, Henry Jackson Society affiliates, and so on) and then wrote their own narrative. Their biggest target throughout their efforts? Ted Postol, professor emeritus of science at MIT, who they claimed was a Russian disinformation agent for finding the theoretical chemistry ridiculous and not practical.
  - RobertMiller 5y ago
    > They haven't used them because they are -- for all intents and purposes -- useless. To your point, some numbers from wikipedia: The LD50 of sarin is 39 micrograms per kilogram, so 0.0039 grams to kill a 100kg man half the time in theory. Now consider the worst of the gas attacks in Syria was in Ghouta. Fatality estimates vary considerably, but the highest estimate claims 1729 fatalities. The attack is claimed to have been performed using at least 8 rockets, likely more, each with at least 50 liters of liquid sarin. That's a lower bound of 400 liters of liquid sarin, for an upper bound of 1729 kills. Liquid sarin's density is roughly the same as water, so that works out to more than 230 grams of sarin per person killed. And if you use the lower fatality estimates or the higher rocket count estimates, the numbers are even worse. Conclusion? The delivery/dispersion of poison gas is incredibly inefficient. In practice you need tens of thousand times more nerve gas than the LD50 figures would have you naively believe.
- ceejayoz 5y ago
  Given that the Syrian war is still ongoing, that seems to debunk the idea that it's as easy as "Drop nerve gas on a city, walk in a couple days later."
- mardifoufs 5y ago
  What?! This is not true! I've never heard anyone claiming russia did it. The mainstream consensus is that the syrian government did it, while a minority thinks it was either old stock getting released by accident or the rebels doing it. Do you have a source? Because even with all the controversy surrounding international investigation and the theories that have spawned around that, russia wasn't even a possible suspect.

someotherperson 5y ago

That's not how it works, and they're not very useful at all. The amount of actual product you need is non-trivial and at that point you might as well just use modern conventional munitions. The reason why it fell out of favour isn't because it's dangerous, it's because it was ineffective outside of TV and film.

R0b0t1 5y ago
That's not how it works? That's all I get? I'd refer you to the site guidelines, barging into a thread and going "NO U" is not a real conversation. A siege of a city is more impractical than it ever has been. In ancient times a siege was conducted out of necessity; it was the only way to kill everyone inside if a population did not desire subjugation. Complete death of those resisting you was typically the goal, with the slow communication of antiquity leaving any resistance might mean coming back to an army the next time you visit. It was easier to depopulate the region and move your descendants in. We see echoes of this in modern times. We "took" Kabul at extreme expense, but did not really "take" it as asymmetric enemy forces continued to operate throughout the entire country while the US occupied Afghanistan. Taking many cities across a nation with advanced embedded weaponry is going to be impossible. If it came down to it, such a country would resort to area denial, like Russia did in the Chechnya and Syria, leveling the cities instead of sweeping them. We don't see people deploying chemical WMDs not because they are too expensive but because of political reasons, and after that, because they don't have them due to disarmament treaties. All it takes is someone deciding they really want to win for all of it to change. You can deny a huge area for weeks with a few chemical warheads. You can make a city inhospitable using less materiel than it'd take to flatten it.
- openasocket 5y ago
  I'd invite you to read the article I linked: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/ https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch... . Generally speaking, if you need to take a city you're better off using high explosives than chemical weapons. It's well researched and cites sources.