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

21–30 of 166 posts

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

#21

Post by cmroanirgo »

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…

I remember reading this before, but don't recall the author... Who was it?

Regarding the article: it seems to miss the obvious points, and sounds almost sociopathic in its use of literary lyricism to suggest that chemical weapons should be regarded as a viable weapon, if only it weren't for the military weaknesses it produces.

> the narrative I got was fairly clear: we didn’t use chemical weapons because after World War I the nations of the world got together and decided that chemical weapons were just too horrible and banned them, and that this was a sign of something called ‘progress.’

The use of chemical weapons, as parent's comment writes, is indiscriminate in who and what it affects, whether it be enemy or own soldiers, or innocents: women, children, animals and even fauna. To have your skin melt, or your lungs liquified because some monster on the other side cooked up a recipe shows how inhumane and lacking in compassion people can be.

I recall being told why modern military don't use high calibre rifles anymore (303 or 762): because a lower calibre tends to wound the enemy, which means that 2 or more enemy soldiers are needed to help their comrade out... Hence 1 smaller & lighter bullet can take out 2 or more of the enemy. That is, modern warfare is about incapacitating an enemy's ability to fight back. This is why sanctions, targetting infrastructure, stealth attack, etc, is what you see on the news all the time.

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

#22

Post by blunte »

This is an excellent and well written essay that answers its own question.

But I will offer my own answer. Grooups generally don't use chemical weapons because such use is too obvious too unsettling to viewers/supporters. They want the outcome, whatever it may be, but they don't want to look like they are greedy or insensitive or anti(or counter)-religious [generally speaking, they don't want to appear overtly confrontational].

Things must be done just slightly less aggressively than will upset the general population/supporters who fund the endeavors.

In Earth-time, this discussion is mostly academic. The horrors which we inflict upon each other is far less than the likely destruction we invite upon ourselves as a species through our collective behaviors (environmentally speaking). The human existence on this planet is probably (in the mathematical sense) very short.

I suspect the real concern is that we or someone we know may suffer some extended period of pain because of chemical or other non-instant-death conflict. People think they are afraid of dying, but usually it is more that they are afraid of a slow death which includes pain and anguish.

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

#23

Post by mattmanser »

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.

He addressed that in the article really well. He argues modern, well trained, armies that constantly move with devolved command structures can't effectively use chemical weapons, and on top of that if fighting against a comparable opponent chemical weapon protection is cheap. Even when under existential threat those type of armies haven't used them.

Temporarily denying an area doesn't work with a mobile army, you might deny yourself an opening or you might not even know where your units are.

But poorly trained armies, with no independent command because of the coup potential can kind of use them as they get into 'static' fights, and have done, i.e. Iraq and Syria.

It really is an excellent article, though long, I would recommend reading it.

And it really drives the point home that the idea we got civilized and banned them is a fuzzy PR lie we tell ourselves.

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

#24

Post by mythrwy »

blunte wrote: post #22

This is an excellent and well written essay that answers its own question. But I will offer my own answer. Grooups generally don't use chemical weapons because such use is too obvious too unsettling to viewers/supporters. They want the outcome, whatever it may be, but they don't want to look like they are greedy or insensitive or anti(or counter)-religious [generally speaking, they don't want to appear overtly confro…

Humans are amazingly resilient. Like mice, but to the n'th degree.

Human existence on this planet isn't going to end any time soon. Even if the planet heats up. Even if there is trash in the oceans. But there might be a whole lot less of us and life might be a lot less pleasant.

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

#25

Post by davidgay »

thedirt0115 wrote: post #2

tl;dr: "Not because chemical weapons are immoral. Because they are ineffective" :'(

Which strikes me as coming from the rather strange view that there must be a single reason for everything.

When in my view, it's hard for a single person to have a single reason for anything, so when many people are involved...

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

#26

Post by fuckface123 »

dntbnmpls wrote: post #19
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 h…

"Nazis" in the context of WWII is commonly understood to mean the nation of Germany under control of the Nazi party.

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

#27

Post by outworlder »

mythrwy wrote: post #24
blunte wrote: post #22

This is an excellent and well written essay that answers its own question. But I will offer my own answer. Grooups generally don't use chemical weapons because such use is too obvious too unsettling to viewers/supporters. They want the outcome, whatever it may be, but they don't want to look like they are greedy or insensitive or anti(or counter)-religious [generally speaking, they don't want to appear overtly confro…

Humans are amazingly resilient. Like mice, but to the n'th degree. Human existence on this planet isn't going to end any time soon. Even if the planet heats up. Even if there is trash in the oceans. But there might be a whole lot less of us and life might be a lot less pleasant.

This is true. But our bodies require very specific conditions to survive. We can offset them with tech, but only to a degree. Most of it requires some semblance of civilization to maintain. Disrupt that, and we are in for a very bad time.

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

#28

Post by nordsieck »

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…

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

1. Hollow point bullets aren't banned. The US Army just adopted them recently - M1153.

2. Hollow point bullets are very effective compared to ball ammo. There is plenty of research that's been done on this (see Martin Fackler). However, pistols are much less effective than rifles.

> 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.

1. This is a pervasive myth. There is absolutely no evidence of this from primary sources. The goal of shooting people is and has always been to kill them.

2. The reason calibers have dropped over time has nothing to do with making them less lethal. It's because they're lighter and smaller (easier to carry more of them), and they shoot flatter and faster (easier to hit targets).

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

#29

Post by ip26 »

cmroanirgo wrote: post #21
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…

I remember reading this before, but don't recall the author... Who was it? Regarding the article: it seems to miss the obvious points, and sounds almost sociopathic in its use of literary lyricism to suggest that chemical weapons should be regarded as a viable weapon, if only it weren't for the military weaknesses it produces. > the narrative I got was fairly clear: we didn’t use chemical weapons because after World…

Another reason for low Calibre rifles- despite a cultural focus on marksmanship, internal studies found number of bullets fired was the number one predictor of enemy casualties. And the more bullets you shoot, the more you have to carry.

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

#30

Post by donw »

kjs3 wrote: post #20
donw wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, I should provide context.

From a tactical perspective, the minefield is easy to clear.

In terms of long-term effects, the mines are definitely worse. We are still finding mines from World War II all over Europe, and it’s a huge problem in Korea as well.

Post reply on HN