Some would possibly count tear gas, white phosphorous or depleted uranium.
None of that are chemical weapons any more than water in waterboarding. They are all chemicals including water.
Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
31–40 of 166 posts
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#32tl;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 lo…
I'm not sure that it's entirely accurate to claim that manifest destiny was a "cultural belief" (or at least, it doesn't tell the whole story), as that would imply a large form of consensus within the culture in regards to the belief. Many prominent Americans of the time, Whigs, and eventually the early Republicans believed that, rather than making their mission of expansion one of conquest, to expand by way of democratic example. Though "manifest destiny" was, for all intents and purposes, a "cultural belief", I think it's worth noting that there were many people in said culture who were vocally opposed to the idea and the actions the acceptance of such an idea would motivate.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#33Another 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…
It isn't singling out, dude. It's just an example. Obviously from the guys avoiding signing anti-cluster-munitions and anti-landmines you can tell that they're all concerned about their military effectiveness.
Fine, go ahead and say that Admiral Donitz only got away because we used Unrestricted Submarine Warfare just as much as he did. Okay. There we go. Now we're all even.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#34Bent 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…
I think it's well established in the literature that the modern military doesn't use the old larger battle rifle cartridges anymore because the extra range it offered was almost never needed and the smaller assault rifle cartridge allows more ammunition to be carried by each soldier.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#35Some would possibly count tear gas, white phosphorous or depleted uranium.
If DU is a chemical weapon, then TNT is too because it's a chemical.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#36tl;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 lo…
Even if it worked out for the country in the end, it seems like those in power would hesitate to create such upheaval. Hard to hang on to the reins of power when the world turns upside down.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#37Another 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 destr…
Hollow points are against the Geneva convention. The round you linked is only for use in special circumstances to prevent over penetration, Things like terrorist hostage rescue. They won’t and can’t be legally used in general warfare.
There was actually a big argument in the past over match grade rounds that have a dimpled front and a hollowed core, which keeps the weight toward the back of the round. They aren’t effective in hunting for the same reason they aren’t considered a hollow point by the military.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#38Another 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 destr…
> 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.
In a military context that is actually required by law, which I think is the fourth Geneva Convention. Combat forces are required to eliminate the enemy with minimal unnecessary suffering, which means the intention is always to kill and not injure.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
It isn't singling out, dude. It's just an example. Obviously from the guys avoiding signing anti-cluster-munitions and anti-landmines you can tell that they're all concerned about their military effectiveness. Fine, go ahead and say that Admiral Donitz only got away because we used Unrestricted Submarine Warfare just as much as he did. Okay. There we go. Now we're all even.
Give the man his due. That's Führer Donitz to you. Even if it was for a shorter period of time than William Henry Harrison fighting a cold after a a chilly wind.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 disp…
Nuclear weapons provide a deterrent. They can be useful if they are actually used (ex., Hiroshima) but since 1945 the primary benefit has been deterrence.