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

91–100 of 166 posts

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

#91

Post by behindsight »

shklnrj wrote: post #70

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 senio…

Apologies if I misunderstood, but I don't think that particular point was missed; it seems to be the article's first stated viewpoint actually:

> the narrative I got was fairly clear: we didn’t use chemical weapons because after World War I the nations of the world got together and decided that chemical weapons were just too horrible and banned them, and that this was a sign of something called ‘progress.’

That point is even further iterated on in the conclusion when comparing them to cluster munitions which as you put, "cause multi generation effects" due to remaining active years after the conflict.

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

#92

Post by kelnos »

j9461701 wrote: post #88
jvanderbot wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tar…

> As the article notes, the 1995 sarin attack in Japan injured over 1,000 people.

Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely killed all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have?

> 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 explicitly notes this as well, that chemical weapons are only really used by weaker, less-monied, static-system militaries. And even then, they're only effective against similar adversaries, not against more modern enemies.

But "poor man's nuke" isn't even really a great characterization from the perspective of the US or Russia: with a modern military, chemical weapons do less damage than a cheaper, lighter, easier-to-deploy explosive. They're not a "poor man's nuke", they're just a poor man's weapon, period.

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

#93

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

austincheney wrote: post #38
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…

> 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.

Between hollow points and ball ammo; the hollow points kill more than they wound. That part of the convention was written with feelings and not facts.

Also, does not apply; the US is not a signatory.

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

#94

Post by SlowRobotAhead »

AstralStorm wrote: post #65
thom wrote: post #8

Some would possibly count tear gas, white phosphorous or depleted uranium.

Might as well count gasoline bombs and napalm while at it.

Bullets have Pb, and Cu, both known to be very bad when introduced to the bloodstream, in this case quickly.

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

#95

Post by dmurray »

kelnos wrote: post #92
j9461701 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tar…

> As the article notes, the 1995 sarin attack in Japan injured over 1,000 people. Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely killed all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have? > 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 ex…

> Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely killed all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have?

5 kg of explosives? Definitely not.

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

#96

Post by dmurray »

tehjoker wrote: post #59
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…

It probably has more to do with something like gas being easier to produce so western countries can paint poorer countries as villains more easily by showing how they violate human rights. U.S. weapons such as napalm, white phosphorous, cluster munitions, and land mines disfigure entire countries, people, and children but the media and military have such a lock on the public discourse that these images and stories ar…

That's still the tail waggimg the dog. Once you decide that a weapon or tactic is ineffective for you, but might be useful for your enemies, then you portray it as inhumane and sign treaties about it. There will always be some weapon or tactic you can treat in this way.

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

#97

Post by j9461701 »

kelnos wrote: post #92
j9461701 wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tar…

> As the article notes, the 1995 sarin attack in Japan injured over 1,000 people. Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely killed all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have? > 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 ex…

>Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely killed all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have?

Looking it up on wikipedia, most suicide bomber vests weigh roughly as much (5 kg) or up to 4 times as much (20 kg) as all the sarin used in this attack (5.45 kg). I've never heard of a single suicide bomber, using a vest, injuring 1,000 people. So I am inclined to think the chemical approach is more efficacious.

In fact that's another little nitpick I have with the article - it's high explosives that heavily benefit from tightly packed situations, as they're a one-and-done sort of deal. The sarin gas though was able to be spread all along a tube system, and cause problems for huge amounts of people.

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

#98

Post by throwanem »

jimbob45 wrote: post #79
throwanem wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Steal from the best."

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

#99

Post by michaelt »

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…

> if they delegitimize your war effort, what have you really gained?

In a war characterised by:

* Bombing of civilian populations, by both sides

* Penal battalions charging across minefields without guns and getting shot by their own side if they retreat.

* First and second uses of nuclear weapons

* Literally the holocaust

The idea that chemical weapons weren't used because they were "morally repugnant" isn't the most obvious conclusion IMHO.

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

#100

Post by GarvielLoken »

What an ignorant article. The Soviet union was a peer to the "Western" and "Modern System" and they would totally use chemical weapon during a conflict, asymmetrical tactics and in general any underhand methods that they could think of. Typical Nato way = The only way article. And the Soviet union was more mechanized and earlier then the US. If anything Nato was the static tactic user during the cold war.

Source: https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf Page 186, section 16-3

Post reply on HN