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

121–130 of 166 posts

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

#121

Post by nnq »

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…

Yeah, and this exactly where TFA misses the scary implications of modern transformations: we're in an age where it's cheap and easy to both deliver weapons by drones (so regular army divisions ca "wash their hands" of what the "special weapons" guys do, while still enjoying the befits of their deployment weakening the enemy), and to blame them on third party real or imaginary terrorist orgs.

Remote and automated warfare, coupled with more and more controlled/closed borders (we'll have these after COVID + economic crises) lowers the perceived cost and increases the benefits of using chem and bio weapons. Paradoxically, the better you'll be "prepared for a pandemic virus", the more in-control and confident you'll feel about indirectly using such weapons.

That's why we have to keep the world open and connected! And don't do the stupid thing of over-investing in surveillance and control that will only create dangerous illusions of being able to "safely" play with such "toys"!

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

#122

Post by Foober223 »

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.

Depends on the area. In Afghanistan there was a much stronger need for range. Old hunting rifles, not AK's were the most powerful small weapon used by the locals. The US had to bring back the old .308 rifles to compete. And even brought in some newly designed .308 rifles.

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

#123

Post by dsfyu404ed »

j9461701 wrote: post #81
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're not wrong but the M4 is particularly good at follow up shot performance (stock in line with barrel and raised sights to keep the barrel in line with your shoulder will do that) and M14 is particularly terrible about being hard on the user.

If you want to be all proper and sciency about it you should probably compare guns that are on the same general platform (M4/AR10, AK/PSL, G3/G33, list goes on).

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

#125

Post by brazzy »

totorovirus wrote: post #66

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 soldi…

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

The article argues pretty convincingly that this is not actually true, since they are just not as effective as high explosives at killing people.

They are possibly more effective at terrorizing the population into surrendering.

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

#128

Post by nabla9 »

I'm not fully agreeing with the argument.

Chemical, biological and radiological weapons (not nukes) are effective as defensive weapons. They dramatically slow down down area access and advance of the enemy. Troops fighting in full NBC suit move very slowly. They have to periodically retreat, decontaminate and rest.

Just like land- and sea mines they are defensive weapons that attacking armies dislike. The rationalization is the long term damage for the civilians or society (can be true), but mines and chemical weapons allow for smaller armies slow down the advance of the enemy.

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

#130

Post by CydeWeys »

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.

You didn't put it in quotes and you didn't attribute it directly. Why not attribute it correctly yourself? That's what's customary.
Post reply on HN