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

141–150 of 166 posts

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

#141

Post by alexpotato »

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.

One of the big realizations from World War Two was that plans that involved civilian bombing to "break the spirit" of an enemy population had the opposite effect. Since the bombing only killed a small percentage of the population, the surviving population felt almost euphoric.

This reminded me of two quotes:

"There is no better feeling than having someone shoot at you and miss!" - Winston Churchill

"Combat isn't where you might die -- though that does happen -- it's where you find out whether you get to keep on living. Don't underestimate the power of that revelation. Don't underestimate the things young men will wager in order to play that game one more time." -Sebastian Junger

This will probably also lead to a wave of euphoria once COVID-19 has passed on.

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

#142

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

jcranmer wrote: post #138
23B1 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

While terrorism (going by the classical definition) hasn’t had had any (or many?) victories of that sort - let’s not pretend that acts of terrorism don’t achieve political goals - and if nothing else they make the people in charge sit-up and take notice.

There’s only one example I can comfortably talk about: I don’t believe Devolution and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland would have come about if it weren’t for the shadow of the IRA looming over Westminster.

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

#143

Post by hajile »

nabla9 wrote: post #128

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 rationaliza…

They also completely skip by VX "gas" and seem to assume that aerosol is the only dispersal mechanism.

VX is more a surface coating than a gas. "minefields" of VX could be laid very rapidly and randomly which would be a bane to mobile troops. If saddam actually had a VX supply and laid it down in key areas, the US soldiers would have suffered many times more KIA (and there's no effective treatment -- gallons of atropine per patient simply isn't viable).

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

#144

Post by hajile »

danesparza wrote: post #140

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.

If people think all those munitions are simply going away,they must not know the US military. You can bet everything that only old, outdated munitions get destroyed. The US has flagrantly violated every other treaty and there's no reason to believe this one is different.

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

#145

Post by cjslep »

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…

Frantic minds are terrified

Life lies in a grave

Silent death rides high above

On the wings of revelation

Multi death from chemicals

Arrogance has won

Annihilation must be swift

Destroy without destruction

Gods on the throne must be watching from hell

Awaiting the mass genocide

Soldiers defeated by death from a smell

Bodies lie dormant no life

Rising new souls on the lands where they fell

Demons not ready to die

Nothing to see where the sleeping souls lie

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

#146

Post by rayrrr »

CydeWeys wrote: post #130
rayrrr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here are my three reasons not to be customary in this case: poetic license, public domain, and maximum impact.

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

#147

Post by redis_mlc »

DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #142
jcranmer wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

While terrorism (going by the classical definition) hasn’t had had any (or many?) victories of that sort - let’s not pretend that acts of terrorism don’t achieve political goals - and if nothing else they make the people in charge sit-up and take notice. There’s only one example I can comfortably talk about: I don’t believe Devolution and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland would have come about if it weren…

My understanding is that US envoys and a moderator was the main reason for the ceasefire.

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

#148

Post by GeorgeWBasic »

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…

What could possibly be considered weird about that? How could anyone consider slow killing to not be worse than sudden death? They're both death, but one is much worse. It's much more weird to be talking about suffering and slow death as though they aren't worse, and that only weird people think they are.

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

#149

Post by rayrrr »

robin_reala wrote: post #104
rayrrr wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was waiting for someone to do that for me. ;) Thanks. Agreed. Props to the WW1 poet Wilfred Owen 1893-1918.

(I put together a PD ebook collection of his work at https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/wilfred-owen/poetry )

Thanks for that! Great resource.

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

#150

Post by ufmace »

ken wrote: post #17
AlexMoffat wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the occasions you mention are covered in the blog. The sarin attack is used to demonstrate that even in the best conditions for the attacker they would not be effective in a military sense against modern first tier armies. As a terror weapon yes but the question is why don’t modern militaries plan to use them. It doesn’t rest on perfect efficiency. At this point the US, for example, doesn’t have the quantity need…

The nuclear weapon question isn't really covered, which is an interesting case because they're also strategically useless to a Modern army -- and the U.S. government knows it [1]. Yet disarmament basically froze 10 years ago. In the language and framework of this article, I understand why countries with Static armies might feel the need to develop them, but I don't understand why Modern armies which are happy to disp…

IMO because they make better strategic than tactical weapons.

I don't see much value in that article - it's basically just Colin Powell quoted as saying that he doesn't think nuclear weapons are useful and that they should be eliminated. But he's just one person, at one time, and he doesn't say anything about how. That's far, far away from a broad agreement among the entire US military and government. It's more like political propaganda than a reasoned analysis.

An actual modern military force in the field should be significantly less vulnerable. You'd have to be quite close to the detonation to damage armored vehicles and troops in good cover. Actually targeting it well is likely to be hard too. It would be nasty to soft vehicles and buildings and anybody outside of cover, but 5 minutes warning could cut that down pretty well.

But they would be quite effective indeed against more strategic targets, from military bases and logistic areas all the way back to factories and cities.

Post reply on HN