3 ms·
There's a line of reasoning that argues that chemical/biological weapons have not been banned because they're inhumane, but rather because they're costly and in
by Xylakant 3y ago
There's a line of reasoning that argues that chemical/biological weapons have not been banned because they're inhumane, but rather because they're costly and ineffective against a technologically advanced peer. Few things you can achieve with a chemical bomb against an advanced adversary cannot be better achieved with a nuclear bomb, while steamrolling an inferior adversary is easily possible using conventional means. See 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... for a longer discussion.
If one subscribes to that view, there's no argument that this was a collective decision for humanities sake, but rather a cost/benefit analysis by the military.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoThere are also global, collective, restrictions on the bomb though?
- brazzy 3y agoNuclear, you mean? Sure, but you can make the same argument about a cost/benefit analysis, they're more efficient as a threat or deterrent than in actual use.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago> they're more efficient as a threat or deterrent than in actual use. Why do you believe so?
- htrp 3y agoBetter example is landmines.
- shawabawa3 3y agoWe've banned the use of landmines globally? Someone should tell Russia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmines_in_Ukraine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmines_in_Ukraine
- red-iron-pine 3y agolow effort agi-prop is low effort. The US and the USSR never banned them. Most of the world did so they could claim moral clout, but make no mistake, if the shooting started they'd be buying them from one side or the other like crazy. As former USSR countries, UKR and RUS never agreed to ban them. Same for cluster munitions. And we're seeing just how brutally effective both are.
- School-Cotton 3y agoLand mines are not banned by any of the major powers (China, Russia, USA)
- bluGill 3y agoCountries that have banned landmines have allies who have not that will step in and place those mines if needed. If US EU relations (NATO) go south and war (not necessary with the US) looks likely Europe will get rid of those treaties fast.
- lolinder 3y agoLandmines are a great example of what would happen if you tried to get everyone to cooperate and go back to low-tech weapons—some countries would agree to do so, and others would laugh and invade them, guns blazing.
- bluGill 3y agoThe biggest con of chemical weapons is you can't prevent the wind from shifting and blowing it back at you. Any general that has an attack backfire and be worse for their side than the enemy looks bad so no great general will risk it.