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

131–140 of 166 posts

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

#131

Post by leetcrew »

nordsieck wrote: post #53
leetcrew wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

regarding 2), it's my understanding that hollow point is not very effective against targets wearing armor, and also that they are indeed prohibited outside of situations where overpenetration of structures is a concern. seems to fit the pattern.

> it's my understanding that hollow point is not very effective against targets wearing armor While that's true, the hollow point doesn't make a difference. Essentially all pistol ammo is bad at penetrating armor. What does make a (small) difference is velocity; you can see this by looking at ratings for NIJ level IIa and IIIa armor. This is why pistol ammo that's designed to penetrate soft armor like 5.7mm is so sma…

interesting, I always thought it was less effective than other pistol ammo because it would begin expanding against the vest. TIL.

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

#132

Post by CydeWeys »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #123
j9461701 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Anecdotally, proper sling usage makes a huge difference with the larger cartridge battle rifles. The sling needs to be wrapped around your off-arm tightly and seriously pull the rifle into your shoulder, which substantially helps to mitigate the recoil knocking it off its aim. Yes, your shoulder is still gonna be taking a bruising, but that's the much better end of the rifle to be on.

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

#133

Post by Spooky23 »

rsynnott wrote: post #115
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 warhe…

It's expensive to properly maintain those stockpiles, and even a well-funded military did a particularly bad job at it. There's no glory in keeping pallets of drums in good condition.

Leaks happen and have happened, etc.

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

#134

Post by 23B1 »

brazzy wrote: post #125
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.

> terrorizing the population into surrendering.

This is asymmetrical warfare in a nutshell

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

#135

Post by CydeWeys »

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…

Per the linked article, the London civilian populace was widely equipped with gas masks. A chemical weapon would thus cause fewer fatalities than you might expect.

A 1,000 lb bomb falling on an apartment building, however, would definitely have a significant death toll.

Keep in mind that the total civilian casualty count on the British side during the Battle of Britain was 43k dead and 139k wounded, all from conventional explosives. Those are substantial figures. It's not clear how chemical weapons could have ever remotely killed as many, because after the first few successful attacks the gas masks would be emphasized even more, and everyone would be carrying theirs with them everywhere they went, ready to don at a moment's notice. As the article points out, you can armor even a civilian populace against chemical weapons relatively easily, but you can't armor a city against high explosives.

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

#136

Post by CydeWeys »

lopis wrote: post #113
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.

Except that top-flight militaries are ready for them. All of our armored vehicles are already air-tight, and hazmat suits are widely available throughout the military. It doesn't help the chemical weapon's case that the countermeasures to it fall into the broad category of Nuclear/Biological/Chemical, all of which need roughly the same countermeasures (airtight vehicles, gas masks, hazmat suits). Militaries are still equipped and ready for these kinds of attacks.

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

#137

Post by jvanderbot »

nnq wrote: post #121
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…

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 warf…

drones cannot deliver the quantities of chemical required. Also, how do drones absolve command chain of responsibility? There's an awful lot of infrastructure required for their deployment.

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

#138

Post by jcranmer »

23B1 wrote: post #134
brazzy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> terrorizing the population into surrendering. This is asymmetrical warfare in a nutshell

Except terrorizing a population into surrendering hasn't proven to be an effective tactic in history. I'm struggling to think of a single case where it actually happened.

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

#139

Post by cullenking »

masonic wrote: post #90
cullenking wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yeah I am certainly not an expert and I don’t know why the us military hasn’t used them, but they haven’t, and still aren’t going to from what I can read. I found that rabbit hole while researching hunting ammo, not because I am a military scholar or anything.

Seems kinda odd to me anyway, though I suppose limiting the damage a combatant receives while fighting isn’t a bad thing. Coming up with a stance makes you have to mentally address the concept of good vs bad guys, and I suppose I don’t see enemy fighters as bad people, just people fighting for differing ideals. That makes me tend to agree with rules that limit fatalities and excessive injury.

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

#140

Post by danesparza »

Omitted by the article (I'm sure it was an oversight): The US had a chemical weapons program into the 1990's (link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons... ) -- this program was decommissioned by President George Bush in 1993, but the last of the munitions WON'T BE REMOVED UNTIL 2023.
Post reply on HN