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

41–50 of 166 posts

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

#41

Post by LanceH »

ip26 wrote: post #29
cmroanirgo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Literally survivor bias.

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

#42

Post by kjs3 »

donw wrote: post #30
kjs3 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. From a tactical perspective, minefields are very difficult to clear, especially in the short term to achieve tactical objectives. That's why they're effective. The fact they're dangerous decades later shows it's not easy.

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

#43

Post by kitteh »

Another reason: maintaining a supply of chemical weapons is dangerous. Turns out no city/state wants that stockpile, either.

Years ago a co-worker of mine at the phone company had to go to military base in Terre Haute to work on some high speed circuits that weren't working properly. The network room was in the basement of a warehouse that stored VX nerve agents - rows and rows of it. When he got to the base he had to watch some training video on nerve agents, get issued a gas mask and the atropine shot then escorted to the facility. He said during the whole time he was incredibly nervous as the evacuation route involved running back up into the warehouse then through an exit.

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

#44

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#45

Post by throwaway_pdp09 »

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…

[flagged]

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

#46

Post by rodonn »

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.

There are solid/liquid forms that persist for much much longer. Look at the efforts UK went through to clean up after the chemical attack in Salisbury (which was a liquid in a perfume bottle).

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

#47

Post by nordsieck »

cullenking wrote: post #37
nordsieck wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 eff…

> 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.

You're wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet#Legality

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

#48

Post by leetcrew »

nordsieck wrote: post #28
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 destr…

regarding 2), it's my understanding that hollow point is not very effective against targets wearing armor, and also that they are indeed prohibited outside of situations where overpenetration of structures is a concern. seems to fit the pattern.

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

#49

Post by cullenking »

nordsieck wrote: post #47
cullenking wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 eff…

> 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. You're wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-point_bullet#Legality

Read the second paragraph of that section. And sorry, Hague convention not Geneva. Either way, only special circumstances aka special operations from my understanding, which is more like international policing than warfare.

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

#50

Post by rayrrr »

kjs3 wrote: post #18
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.

I was waiting for someone to do that for me. ;) Thanks. Agreed. Props to the WW1 poet Wilfred Owen 1893-1918.
Post reply on HN