3 ms·
That's not really the Geneva convention though, chemicals weapons are just not effective for any actual warfare (aside from committing atrocities).
by Snow_Falls 3y ago
That's not really the Geneva convention though, chemicals weapons are just not effective for any actual warfare (aside from committing atrocities).
- Grimblewald 3y agoI'm sorry but that is totally incorrect. Being able to clear out a building without damaging its capacity to provide cover is enormously useful. Chemical weapons are incredibly useful, just awful.
- nand4011 3y agoThe argument I've seen against their usefulness is that they only work against static militaries that don't have NBC training, and a modern military can already defeat threats like that without paying the political cost of using them. 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...
- cyberax 3y ago> Chemical weapons are incredibly useful They're not. They're effective against an unprepared adversary. Any real military will have anti-chemical-weapons tactics and protection. So this happens: you douse a building with a gas, and then walk inside and get shot by defenders in gas masks. And by the way, you also will have to wear a gas mask yourself.