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

71–80 of 166 posts

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

#71

Post by RyJones »

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…

Interesting - I grew up in Terre Haute. I think you're talking about the old VX bunker up in Newport, maybe?

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

#72

Post by dntbnmpls »

TomMckenny wrote: post #56
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…

>Are you really pretending the US, Britain, Soviet Union, etc didn't freely violate the "rules of war" also No but The US and UK are far less notorious and so are not as good examples. > Also, the nazis aren't a nation Given the foulness of the topic but limited space, I wanted to emphasize the enormous difference between the Germans and Japanese of today vs 80 years ago. In retrospect, I should have written Tojo ins…

[flagged]

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

#73

Post by dntbnmpls »

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 the Germans voted into power

Most germans didn't vote for the nazis. Certainly the hundreds of thousands of non-voting young people and children who perished during the firebombings certainly didn't.

> You blame Americans for voting Trump into power, right?

No. Why would I? Not sure if you are trolling or not.

> and the Japanese for supporting their leaders' violent colonialism.

You do realize that was the era of colonialism right? Certainly there weren't a greater colonial power than the US, Britain and the Soviet Union.

> Japan and Germany were not the victims of WWII.

By definition they are. Victor and victim have a common root for a reason. And certainly all the innocent civilians ( men, women and children ) who were killed in the firebombings and nukings are certainly victims.

I feel like you are trolling, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Anyways, the topic was "rules of war" and everybody violated it during ww2.

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

#74

Post by pc2g4d »

The trouble with realpolitik is when you get more cynical than reality itself. Instead of a binary---either the morality of chemical weapons caused their ban, or their uselessness in battle did---why not take a supply/demand, cost/benefit sort of approach? The moral repugnance of weapons of mass destruction makes them more costly to the users---if they delegitimize your war effort, what have you really gained? They ceased to be used when the costs outweighed the benefits. Therefore the moral repugnance of them likely hastened their abandonment, even if battlefield effectiveness was the greater influence.

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

#75

Post by [deleted] »

dntbnmpls wrote: post #73
viklove wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the Germans voted into power Most germans didn't vote for the nazis. Certainly the hundreds of thousands of non-voting young people and children who perished during the firebombings certainly didn't. > You blame Americans for voting Trump into power, right? No. Why would I? Not sure if you are trolling or not. > and the Japanese for supporting their leaders' violent colonialism. You do realize that was the era…

[deleted]

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

#76

Post by vilhelm_s »

rodonn wrote: post #46
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.

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).

Even the most long-lasting ones will still evaporate in a few weeks. (Of course, if it's inside a bottle it will not evaporate, and if it's inside a city you probably want to decontaminate it rather than wait).

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

#77

Post by jvanderbot »

pc2g4d wrote: post #74

The trouble with realpolitik is when you get more cynical than reality itself. Instead of a binary---either the morality of chemical weapons caused their ban, or their uselessness in battle did---why not take a supply/demand, cost/benefit sort of approach? The moral repugnance of weapons of mass destruction makes them more costly to the users---if they delegitimize your war effort, what have you really gained? They c…

This is, in fact, explicitly stated in TFA.

"This isn’t a value question, but a value-against-replacement question – why maintain, issue, store, and shoot expensive chemical munitions if cheap, easier to store, easier to manufacture high explosive munitions are both more obtainable and also better? When you add the geopolitical and morale impact on top of that – you sacrifice diplomatic capital using such weapons and potentially demoralize your own soldiers, who don’t want to see themselves as delivering inhumane weapons – it’s pretty clear why would wouldn’t bother."

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

#78

Post by jvanderbot »

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…

This is, in fact, explicitly stated in the article. So, no, not "another" reason.

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

#79

Post by jimbob45 »

throwanem wrote: post #4
thedirt0115 wrote: post #2

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

There's a saying, I forget where it originates but I want to say with either Bismarck or von Schlieffen, to the effect that the closest thing to a moral philosophy of warfare is that it should be pursued as brutally and ferociously as necessary to make wars as short as they possibly can be. Granted, it's as much of its time as were the men I named. But it nonetheless does a good job, albeit implicitly, of pointing up…

It was the central thesis of season three of Game of Thrones.

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

#80

Post by jvanderbot »

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…

This is, in fact, explicitly stated in the article.

"This isn’t a value question, but a value-against-replacement question – why maintain, issue, store, and shoot expensive chemical munitions if cheap, easier to store, easier to manufacture high explosive munitions are both more obtainable and also better? When you add the geopolitical and morale impact on top of that – you sacrifice diplomatic capital using such weapons and potentially demoralize your own soldiers, who don’t want to see themselves as delivering inhumane weapons – it’s pretty clear why would wouldn’t bother."

Post reply on HN