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

81–90 of 166 posts

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

#81

Post by j9461701 »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #34
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…

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.

Additionally, intermediate cartridges allow more rapid followup shots compared to full power rifle cartridges. An M4 fires lightly enough that soldiers can "miss their way to a hit" - as in fire, fire, fire, oh I'm aiming too low, fire, fire, fire oh i'm a little left fire, fire, fire bullseye. Trying that with an M14, which has much stronger recoil, would just result in your shots going increasingly wild.

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

#82

Post by xzel »

I stumbled onto this news documentary on the nerve gas stored in the US from 1973 very randomly maybe a year ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjA0EQPeUGM . If you're interested in this type of stuff this documentary is incredible and apparently won an Emmy. The number of problems with long term are mind boggling technologically, even if people don't know its near them. The whole idea if this place got bombed it would wipe out huge amount of people in the surrounding area based on wind patterns is nuts, frankly. The whole process to dismantle and then "store" the old gas is insane.

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

#83

Post by dang »

dntbnmpls wrote: post #72
TomMckenny wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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]

Please don't post in the flamewar style to HN. We ban accounts that do that, and you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines in other places too. If you wouldn't mind reviewing them and using HN in the intended spirit only, we'd be grateful.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#84

Post by jrs95 »

I would argue we do use chemical weapons, but only in specific circumstances in order to generate outrage about whoever we are claiming used them to justify our own military action. The biggest value they have now is how offensive they are. And I dont mean "we" as in the United States or anything like that, I mean humanity in general. No rational actor would ever decide to use a chemical weapon unless they intended primarily to blame someone else for it.

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

#85

Post by CSSer »

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…

Latin translation: “It is sweet and fitting to die for the homeland”

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

#87

Post by kevas »

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…

Thank you. Powerful

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

#88

Post by j9461701 »

jvanderbot wrote: post #77
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…

I find myself mostly agreeing with this article, although I think it over-states its case slightly and this section highlights why.

Chemical weapons are not very useful on a tactical level, and modernly nuclear weapons are superior on the strategic level. But for a brief period between 1915 and 1945, they were an attractive solution for mass death on a strategic level. A 1,000 pound explosive bomb, with WW2 level targeting, is very unlikely to hit its target and will likely explode some random unpopulated building. A 1,000 ton mustard gas bomb, though it won't hit its target (because WW2 era bombing accuracy), will still have its payload disperse over a wide area and is utterly horrific to deal with. As the article notes, the 1995 sarin attack in Japan injured over 1,000 people. Chemical weapons may not be good for winning a battle, but they're perfect as a terror weapon meant to go after civilians.

In a sense, chemical weapons are a kind of 'poor man's nuke'. Russia and America are standing down their chemical weapons because they have actual nukes, and don't need to also have 2nd rate knock offs.

The article tries to point to WW2 as an example of nations being in existential peril, and still not using chemical weapons, and concluding this means they were ineffective even as terror weapons. But I think that doesn't hold water upon closer analysis - the moment a single German soldier's boot stepped foot on the British isles, which is to say the UK actually faced imminent threat of conquest, Churchill planned to quote "drench [Germany] in gas".

Later on in the war chemical weapons were avoided not for fear of retaliation in itself, but for fear of how one's own people would respond to said retaliation. If you are Great Britain, and public morale for the war is hanging on by a thread, do you want to roll the dice and gas attack Germany - thereby causing Germany to gas attack your civilians - and risk support for the war collapsing? In 1944 Churchill asked for a 'cold blooded analysis' about gassing Germany, and the response that came back was basically "We're already winning the war, and mass gas deployment would be needlessly taking chances. Do not do it!". Churchill famously disagreed with this analysis, but didn't push the matter any further.

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

#90

Post by masonic »

cullenking wrote: post #49
nordsieck wrote: post #47

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. 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.

The USA is not a signatory to that Hague convention.

I don't know what the effect would be of USA participation in a NATO action using expanding small arms ammunition.

Post reply on HN