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

61–70 of 166 posts

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

#61

Post by karaokeyoga »

throwaway_pdp09 wrote: post #45
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…

[flagged]

I believe he was referring to the article itself, rather than the quote.

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

#62

Post by jonmartinwest »

kitteh wrote: post #43

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 t…

Dzerzhinsk in Russian is a great example of this.

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

#64

Post by golem14 »

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…

Well, hypothetically speaking, a state might have secretly mass vaccinated it’s population against its engineered bioweapon(eg hidden in tdmr vaccine).

But I agree many things might go wrong with such a scheme. More of a plot device for bond movies...

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

#66

Post by totorovirus »

As an ex south korean army (mandatory service), our neighbor in the north still think chemical weapon an effective asymmetrical weapon against us because our small piece of land won't really allow any mobility based modern warfare. There are outposts throughout all the borderline.

We do quite a lot of training to protect against chemical attacks and also the protective respiration devices are included for every soldiers. The most probable attack against us will begin with spreading chemical gas on air to crush the first defense line in the borderline.

If situation become really bad and raw - killing all the civilians - chemical weapon would still be a very effective weapon I think.

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

#67

Post by gonzo41 »

austincheney wrote: post #31
thom wrote: post #8

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.

WP white phosphorous is actually a chemical weapon when used against people. It is an anti material weapon and used for smoke screens. But read up on the use of WP in fallujah.

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

#68

Post by lopmotr »

viklove wrote: post #60
dntbnmpls wrote: post #19

Earlier 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…

I think people just generally have a lot less sympathy for literal Nazis, who the Germans voted into power, and any aggressors in a military campaign. America didn't just nuke Japan out of nowhere, the Japanese opened the door to that when they bombed pearl harbor and attempted to conquer the Pacific. When the bad guys get what's coming to them, people don't feel so bad about it. And don't pretend civilians are compl…

Who ever identifies themselves as the bad guys? Even an aggressor has an excuse for why he believes he's morally right. The US invading Afghanistan for instance was obviously the aggressor but blamed the victim for deserving it. The Nazis blamed their victims too and their victims did do things to deserve it, in some sense. Your simple goodies vs baddies view is wrong.

I agree with your point about blaming voters though. In a democracy, politicians are only a reflection of what voters demand. They don't have much independent power themselves. Even in a non-democratic country, the populace is tacitly supporting their leaders and placing their immediate personal safety ahead of the enemies of their leaders.

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

#69

Post by dmitryminkovsky »

rayrrr wrote: post #50
kjs3 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks for posting wow.

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

#70

Post by shklnrj »

I think the main point was missed in the article. Chemical weapons cause more suffering and less death and cause multi generation effects, while other weapons are primarily hit/miss but geared towards death.

It might seem weird, but death is considered better than suffering by lots of people. I give an example. In the series Chernobyl - soldiers are employed to kill dogs because they might spread radiation. The senior soldier instructs that when you see a dog - keep shooting, till it dies.

In old times, slow killing was considered to be much worse as compared to sudden death. So maybe this is why we don't use chemical weapons.

Post reply on HN