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

11–20 of 84 posts

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

#11

Post by smoldesu »

Comevius wrote: post #3
codefreeordie wrote: post #2

Because they're not really useful. It's very difficult to keep chemical weapons contained so that they only damage your target and not your own soldiers or your allies or a bunch of civilians whose gruesome deaths will not play well in the media. In general, conventional weaponry is more effective at accomplishing military objectives.

Also because of a lack of imagination. Imagine using these puppies in large cities. The world lacks a better class of terrorists. Saudi Arabia used to do some wild stuff with planes back in 2001, prompting the United States to kill a million people in completely unrelated countries, but now we are back to car bombs and incels running with guns when we have a whole spectrum of biological, chemical and radioactive agen…

There's still a number of prominent examples of chemical terrorist attacks, but they're mostly arranged by larger groups rather than 2 angry 4channers. Aum Shinrikyo injured hundreds in their sarin gas attacks, and the Rajneeshee bioterror attack left hundreds sick and dozens hospitalized.

The reason we don't see more of this is pretty straightforward. Although we have active imaginations, the majority of people carrying out these attacks are not Walter White. It takes organizational power to pull off an attack like that.

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

#12

Post by socialismisok »

worthless-trash wrote: post #8
Comevius wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also because of a lack of imagination. Imagine using these puppies in large cities. The world lacks a better class of terrorists. Saudi Arabia used to do some wild stuff with planes back in 2001, prompting the United States to kill a million people in completely unrelated countries, but now we are back to car bombs and incels running with guns when we have a whole spectrum of biological, chemical and radioactive agen…

Its funny how the modern social commentiary associates "incels" with the classes of people they disagree with. It is evident that these people do reproduce.

Incels and "lone wolf" shooters had/have a significant overlap.

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

#13

Post by StanislavPetrov »

> The other large-scale use has been in the Syrian Civil War, by the Assad regime against both military and civilian targets (but mostly civilian targets).

False propaganda unfortunately according to the OPCW inspectors who actually went to Syria, including the director of the OPCW. But you can ignore them and take the CIA's word for it instead like the author of this article did.

https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/02/a-and-b-resp...

>Quite frankly, we don’t use chemical weapons for the same reason we don’t use war-zeppelin-bombers: they don’t work, at least within our modern tactical systems.

Also false, we used white phosphorus extensively in Iraq and elsewhere.

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

#14

Post by DubiousPusher »

Good to see this posted again. I see a concurring example in aerial bombardment policy of the US and the UK throughout WWII. I even wrote a paper regarding it in college.

Both the US and the UK wanted to target the war making capacity of the Germans. The Americans sought to achieve this with strategic precision bombing. The UK sought to do so with mass bombing campaigns targeting industrial workers. The disparity for example manifested in the reluctance of the US to fly bombing missions at night which for obvious reasons was preferred by the British.

Near the end of 1944 however, Allied High Command became concerned that the war might stretch into autumn 1945 and they were hoping the Soviet winter campaign could end the war early. So they initiated their own indiscriminant bombing campaign. In his autobiography, James Doolittle wrote that he opposed the bombing campaign of Berlin because it would , “...violate the basic American principle of precision bombing of targets of strictly military significance...”. In the end, the US adopted the UK's bombing regime and would pursue similar and even more liberal approaches later in the Cold War.

And it is not as if urban bombing wasn't a subject of moral discussion. In WWI the dropping of a grenade upon Paris by a pilot had made it clear that aerial bombardment would probably become a thing. There was a great deal of discussion through the interwar period. In the end though, it seems practicality will triumph over ideals given enough stress and time.

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

#15

Post by bigDinosaur »

Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #5

We do. Probably every day some police force is gassing its own citizens with things that would be a war crime were they soldiers.

Obviously different laws apply to different groups. The police can also do things (arrest people) that would usually be a crime for soldiers to do. Tear gas use by police is either right or wrong, useful or not useful, justifiable or not justifiable, but it's not really related to why chemical warfare is banned in war. We also don't justify the ability and legality of police to kill based on the legality of killing enemy combatants in war, either.

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

#16

Post by Jensson »

socialismisok wrote: post #12
worthless-trash wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its funny how the modern social commentiary associates "incels" with the classes of people they disagree with. It is evident that these people do reproduce.

Incels and "lone wolf" shooters had/have a significant overlap.

In one direction perhaps, not many incels become lone wolf shooters.

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

#17

Post by derefr »

ALittleLight wrote: post #6

This makes me think of an observation from (I think) the web-serial Worm. Being a super hero who shoots fire is very tough. Either your opponent is someone who is vulnerable to fire, in which case your power would burn them to death (which is not very heroic) or your opponent is not vulnerable to fire, in which case your powers are useless. Similar thinking seems to apply here. Either your target is a modern, mobile,…

War isn't like superhero/kaiju duels, though. Duels are generally about the opponent themselves — you can only win by disabling them. But a large part of war is about the logistics of moving soldiers and supplies around and through places; and so it can be critical (even war-winning) to deny your enemy the use of territory.

A "superhero that shoots fire" (i.e. a guy with a flamethrower) — or a rolling cloud of nerve gas — isn't there to actually harm anybody; it's there to be a thing your enemy sees and stays well clear of. It's an https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Area_denial_weapon. The threat of it prevents your opponent from coming within range of it; and thereby locks them out of the area it threatens.

And, as it happens, a flamethrower is a much safer area-denial weapon than a cloud of nerve gas — as, whenever the enemy isn't around, you can immediately shut the flamethrower off, and use the area yourself.

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

#18

Post by justapassenger »

Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #5

We do. Probably every day some police force is gassing its own citizens with things that would be a war crime were they soldiers.

There’s a “slight” difference between tear gas and chemical weapons. Ones cause temporary (but very strong) inconvenience (of course there maybe some one off complications), others are designed to kill you, as efficiently as possible.

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

#19

Post by thatcat »

bigDinosaur wrote: post #15
Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #5

We do. Probably every day some police force is gassing its own citizens with things that would be a war crime were they soldiers.

Obviously different laws apply to different groups. The police can also do things (arrest people) that would usually be a crime for soldiers to do. Tear gas use by police is either right or wrong, useful or not useful, justifiable or not justifiable, but it's not really related to why chemical warfare is banned in war. We also don't justify the ability and legality of police to kill based on the legality of killing e…

We can compare them and see that the police force oversteps its civilian role. Your point about the requirements to kill enemy combatants strenghtens that arguement.

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

#20

Post by vba616 »

Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #5

We do. Probably every day some police force is gassing its own citizens with things that would be a war crime were they soldiers.

Do you think that it would be a good goal to work towards a world where all civilians are subject to military law exclusively?

My impression is the first order of business is declaring an official emergency.

Post reply on HN