Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?

acoup.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 166 posts

Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?

#11

Post by thedance »

throwanem wrote: post #3

tl;dr: Because they're tactically and strategically ineffective. They can make serviceable assassination weapons, as can almost anything given the right arrangement of circumstances, but as a tool of warfare, they suck. What I'd really like to see is an analysis from a military historian's perspective of why biological weapons are even more useless, with specific reference to current events. The tl;dr there is that t…

Why aren't chemical weapons (for example VX) effective area denial weapons? They seem damned good for the purpose.

Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?

#12

Post by adventured »

throwanem wrote: post #3

tl;dr: Because they're tactically and strategically ineffective. They can make serviceable assassination weapons, as can almost anything given the right arrangement of circumstances, but as a tool of warfare, they suck. What I'd really like to see is an analysis from a military historian's perspective of why biological weapons are even more useless, with specific reference to current events. The tl;dr there is that t…

> why biological weapons are even more useless ... they're tactically nonexistent, and strategically worse than merely ineffective because you can't control either their spread or your borders well enough to avoid them blowing back on you.

That's only true if all nations are identical. Which is another way of saying that it's never true. Unless it's a global extinction biological weapon, there would be winners and losers when it's over.

It could be acceptable to use (risk vs reward) if you believed your nation would endure far better than your rivals. If you believed you could get back up faster; that it weakens your rivals long enough, and substantially enough, to give you a path to hegemony. If you believed you could lock your society down better to protect it while the rivals were ravaged.

The US for example had that manner of booster path after WW2. It's not that the US didn't suffer in WW2, it suffered quite a bit, but far less than other major powers, particularly in terms of post war domestic conditions (vast manufacturing and export capabilities ready to go). It helped catapult the US to primary superpower status. Historically speaking, what major nations haven't wanted that position? Some even have cultural beliefs, like manifest destiny, that motivate the culture toward it.

Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?

#13

Post by donw »

thedance wrote: post #11
throwanem wrote: post #3

tl;dr: Because they're tactically and strategically ineffective. They can make serviceable assassination weapons, as can almost anything given the right arrangement of circumstances, but as a tool of warfare, they suck. What I'd really like to see is an analysis from a military historian's perspective of why biological weapons are even more useless, with specific reference to current events. The tl;dr there is that t…

Why aren't chemical weapons (for example VX) effective area denial weapons? They seem damned good for the purpose.

Because they deny the area to you as well. Cleaning up a minefield is child's play compared to dealing with nerve agents.

Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?

#14

Post by uxp100 »

KarlKemp wrote: post #6

There's no way to decide the relative weight of uselessness and perceived immorality of chemical weapons. Some people clearly do consider them horrible, and it would be quite a surprise if none of those people were in any position of power, from armed forces to civilian government to parliamentarians to voters. The argument otherwise rests on the assumption of perfect efficiency in military procurement and decision-m…

Yes, I believe the deployment of Sarin by the cultists was botched. While they had 5L they used it incorrectly. I can't remember where but I think I read something like 100x the deaths if properly distributed.

Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?

#15

Post by TomMckenny »

Another point of evidence that the author probably omitted out of politeness are the nations that freely violated rules of war yet did not make (much) use of chemical weapons: the nazis on the eastern front and wwii japan.

Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point bullet.

Apparently killing a solider outright is not as destructive as driving him long term onto the medical system. This is also one of the reasons caliber has generally been dropped over time. The 1950s move to the 223 round is pretty explicit on this.

Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?

#17

Post by ken »

AlexMoffat wrote: post #10
KarlKemp wrote: post #6

There's no way to decide the relative weight of uselessness and perceived immorality of chemical weapons. Some people clearly do consider them horrible, and it would be quite a surprise if none of those people were in any position of power, from armed forces to civilian government to parliamentarians to voters. The argument otherwise rests on the assumption of perfect efficiency in military procurement and decision-m…

All the occasions you mention are covered in the blog. The sarin attack is used to demonstrate that even in the best conditions for the attacker they would not be effective in a military sense against modern first tier armies. As a terror weapon yes but the question is why don’t modern militaries plan to use them. It doesn’t rest on perfect efficiency. At this point the US, for example, doesn’t have the quantity need…

The nuclear weapon question isn't really covered, which is an interesting case because they're also strategically useless to a Modern army -- and the U.S. government knows it [1]. Yet disarmament basically froze 10 years ago.

In the language and framework of this article, I understand why countries with Static armies might feel the need to develop them, but I don't understand why Modern armies which are happy to dispose of chemical weapons aren't equally happy to dispose of nuclear weapons.

Do American and Russian generals think that nuclear weapons will become useful at some point in the future? Do countries like France believe this? The French president hinted that they kept submarines with nuclear weapons configured for terrorist attacks, but the deadliest terror attack in history was carried out with box cutters, so it's hard to imagine how nuclear weapons would help. Nuclear weapons could be useful (if horrific) against a Static opponent, but not a Guerrilla one.

[1]: https://thinkprogress.org/colin-powell-nuclear-weapons-are-u...

Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?

#18

Post by kjs3 »

rayrrr wrote: post #9

Bent double, like old beggars under sacks, Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge, Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs And towards our distant rest began to trudge. Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind; Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots Of tired, outstripped Five-Nines that dropped behind. Gas! Gas! Quick, boys!—An ec…

Incredibly powerful writing. You might give Wilfred Owen props for writing it.

Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?

#19

Post by dntbnmpls »

TomMckenny wrote: post #15

Another point of evidence that the author probably omitted out of politeness are the nations that freely violated rules of war yet did not make (much) use of chemical weapons: the nazis on the eastern front and wwii japan. Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point bullet. Apparently killing a solider outright is not as destructive as driving him long term onto the medical system. This i…

> Another point of evidence that the author probably omitted out of politeness are the nations that freely violated rules of war yet did not make (much) use of chemical weapons: the nazis on the eastern front and wwii japan.

Why single out germany and japan? Are you really pretending the US, Britain, Soviet Union, etc didn't freely violate the "rules of war" also? Also, the nazis aren't a nation.

Edit: I guess some here think nuking hiroshima/nagasaki, firebombing and burning millions of civilians to death, mass rape of women, etc are within the "rules of war". Interesting.

Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?

#20

Post by kjs3 »

donw wrote: post #13
thedance wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why aren't chemical weapons (for example VX) effective area denial weapons? They seem damned good for the purpose.

Because they deny the area to you as well. Cleaning up a minefield is child's play compared to dealing with nerve agents.

No. Minefield can persist dangerous for decades. Nerve gas dissipates is days/weeks. Nerve agents might clear the ground tactically, but they don't hold it.
Post reply on HN