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

111–120 of 166 posts

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

#111

Post by Intermernet »

michaelt wrote: post #99
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 mos…

Applying morals to any decision made in war is historically unreliable. Justifying actions after the act is usually where the moral relativism hits the history books.

War is, almost by definition and nature, not a moral-friendly activity.

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

#113

Post by lopis »

beloch wrote: post #110

We don't use chemical weapons because they didn't even work that well in WWI. The first chemical weapon attacks in WWI were quite deadly. However, chlorine, phosgene, mustard gas, etc. didn't remain effective after troops on both sides came to expect them. Once everyone had gas masks and the training to put them on quickly, chemical weapons became a mainly psychological threat. There are plentiful horror stories abou…

> What might be combined with surprise in the future?

From what you say, a chemical weapon would be pretty surprising today.

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

#114

Post by rsynnott »

michaelt wrote: post #99
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 mos…

In the specific case of WW2, it's likely that fear of MAD (before the concept had fully formed) was the main reason they weren't used.

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

#115

Post by rsynnott »

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…

> maintaining a supply of chemical weapons is dangerous

I don't really buy this one. I mean, I agree it's dangerous, but the major powers maintained large stocks throughout the Cold War without apparently worrying about it too much. More recently it's become a somewhat expensive disposal problem, but in terms of cost it's not really significant next to the cost of maintaining, say, aircraft carriers, or nuclear warheads.

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

#116

Post by Tuna-Fish »

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.

They work just fine in inducing fragmentation and thus producing greater terminal effects. It's just that armies found out that they can induce fragmentation just fine using a different mechanism that does not have a Hague convention rule against it, and so are using that instead.

Almost all modern military rounds make use of yaw-induced fragmentation, where they are designed to fly stable in air but not in flesh, and so very rapidly yaw in tissue until they are going sideways, in which direction the bullet does not have sufficient structural strength to stay intact, and so fragments. This has essentially the same effect on the target as using hollow points.

> The 1950s move to the 223 round is pretty explicit on this.

This is false. Because of better yaw characteristics, the 5.56 as adopted had similar lethality as the rounds it replaced, at the expected combat ranges. The problems with 5.56 lethality that have been reported were that the M4 carbines adopted later had too short barrels for the rounds the military was using, and the lower muzzle velocity achieved resulted in impacts where the bullets failed to fragment properly.

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

#117

Post by rsynnott »

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.

White phosphorous is borderline; if it wasn't already restricted by incendiary weapons rules (Geneva convention covers use against civilians, Convention on Certain Chemical Weapons covers other use) it would probably be restricted by chemical weapons rules.

Tear gas is _clearly_ a chemical weapon (or a class of chemical weapons, really), and its use is banned in warfare by international treaty. Many countries do allow its use on civilians outside the context of warfare.

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

#118

Post by gherkinnn »

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…

Another doctrine is to fire blindly at the enemy, effectively suppressing them with overwhelming small arms fire and calling in an airstrike.

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

#119

Post by hansjorg »

amitport wrote: post #102
gonzo41 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well that depends who you ask. US claimed it is not a chemical weapon because it ""merely"" burns its subjects but doesn't poison them. Though probably any other country using it like they used it in Fallujah would have suffered consequences (note we're not talking about WP as used for lighthing and gun laying. Allegedly (I'm not sure what the evidence status), US used it for shake & bake on civilian population)

From the Wikipedia page on White phosphorus munitions:

> on 15 November 2005, US Department of Defence spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable confirmed to the BBC that US forces had used white phosphorus as an incendiary weapon there

US shaked and baked children in Fallujah, but they were conveniently redefined from children to enemy combatants at the time.

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

#120

Post by jillesvangurp »

anovikov wrote: post #103

We don't use chemical weapons because they have very poor military efficiency - modern armies taught themselves very well to protect against them, they will mostly harm civilians and make any postwar arrangements very complicated. Also they are very indiscriminate and depend on factors such as wind and elements way too much, so they are about as likely to harm own troops as the enemy. Plus, why bother if we have, to…

That, and it's kind of frowned upon internationally thus exposing people wielding these weapons to the possibility of ending up in a court room some day. Ali Chemicali was eventually executed. So was his boss, Saddam Hussein. In both cases, the use of chemical weapons against civilians was the main thing they were convicted off.
Post reply on HN