It’s a bit of a lot read, so I can’t respond substantially right now. However, the write up doesn’t seem to apply in this situation. The article states it appli

It’s a bit of a lot read, so I can’t respond substantially right now. However, the write up doesn’t seem to apply in this situation. The article states it applies to a select group of counties only. Quote: > why ‘we’ – and by ‘we’ here, I mean the top-tier of modern militaries… I don’t think either of my examples were top tier militaries, which is presumably why they resorted to chemical weapons to both win and subjugate the civilian population. Edit: I read the article you posted now. I don’t think I and the article disagree. I think chemical weapons are of use against civilian holdouts / paramilitary. This is especially the examples I used. The goal of this last phase of the war is not to kill everyone, but to make them lose hope and surrender. Fighting them upright is a bad deal. You can overwhelm civilians but every tank they destroy boosts morale to the point you have to just destroy the city and kill hundreds of thousands to get them to give in. Chemical weapons disrupt life, injure civilians, and give them no proper enemy to fight back against for morale boosts. That they are ineffective is a positive in this scenario as from your POV, this is just a “police action” against “rebels”. You don’t want more effective weapons, since you believe you already won, and doing more is just wasting the population and resources you came here to conquer anyways.