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

71–80 of 84 posts

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

#71

Post by amanaplanacanal »

swayvil wrote: post #53
nicoburns wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If we trust our leaders. And our leaders feed us a bunch of bullshit. And then, motivated by that bullshit, we nazi up. Does that make us bad people? Yes, absolutely. Deferring to authority is no excuse for morally abhorrent behaviour. Of course if you’re under threat that’s a different matter. But blind trust in leadership is a poor excuse. It’s not like the nazis had no detractors in Germany.

Of course it isn't blind trust. Good arguments will be made. Extremely plausible lies uttered by trustworthy authorities and echoed by your friends and peers. Don't imagine that even you are immune. Does believing it make you a bad person? Of course not. You're only doing what's right and sensible.

Indeed. Large parts of the west went through this process less than 20 years ago in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. And something like half a million died. It’s not like this is just a theoretical exercise.

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

#72

Post by nicoburns »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #71
swayvil wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course it isn't blind trust. Good arguments will be made. Extremely plausible lies uttered by trustworthy authorities and echoed by your friends and peers. Don't imagine that even you are immune. Does believing it make you a bad person? Of course not. You're only doing what's right and sensible.

Indeed. Large parts of the west went through this process less than 20 years ago in the run up to the invasion of Iraq. And something like half a million died. It’s not like this is just a theoretical exercise.

I feel like the Iraq war is not a good example if you want to claim that it was good people misled. Millions (including me) protested against that war. There was really no excuse for supporting it.

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

#73

Post by maxbond »

nautilius wrote: post #69
dylan604 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't get me wrong, the Germans had it coming, See, now there you go, giving in to the same logic you're trying to make fun of in the first sentence. Saying all Germans is like saying all Ukrainians welcome being annexed by Russia. Some probably went along because it seemed at the time the easiest way from receiving bullets into parts of their anatomy even if they didn't actually like it.

I called out the euphemism that hid an atrocity - not clear where you think I am doing that here?

You used a different euphemism ("they had it coming") which also serves as atrocity apologia. Which I think goes to show how slippery the myths of violence in our society are, how even when making a conscious effort to recognize and name them they can get away from us. In the same way "industrial workers" can be used to dehumanize and to justify the unjustifiable, "people who had to coming" seeks to put all Germans in the same box and then judge each of them by the worst actions of any of them, in order to sentence them to death.

I appreciate your comments.

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

#74

Post by GartzenDeHaes »

sillystuff wrote: post #66
GartzenDeHaes wrote: post #49

0. For chemical and biological weapons, there's in inverse relationship between dispersal characteristics and ease of force protection. For example, oily liquids such as VX disperse well, but personnel can be projected with simple charcoal lined protective clothes and gas mask filters. On the other hand, viruses and microtoxins are difficult to protect against, but they also have poor dispersal characteristics from b…

The US did quite a bit of experimentation in dispersal of biological weapons. The US Navy dispersed a microbe off the coast of SF to test natural wind dispersal of biological warfare agents. The microbe was harmless to healthy people, but hospitals contain unhealthy people-- some of whom the navy managed to kill. In the midst of an international mosquito eradication effort that (temporarily) rid much of the Americas…

Yes, good points. I would make a distinction between military weapons that target troops in the field versus weapons that target civilian populations, although that is probably not the reality of the world today. Biological weapons have a lot of undesirable properties for military use such as long incubation periods, although the Soviet Union invested heavily in microtoxins as an alternative that addressed some of these shortcomings.

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

#75

Post by eesmith »

tenpies wrote: post #29
justapassenger wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The biggest difference is political: when someone the media doesn't like does it, it's a chemical weapon. When someone the media likes does it, it's nothing. See: https://www.salon.com/2020/06/02/trump-may-have-broken-inter... vs https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/us/protests-portland-seat...

According to the Chemical Weaponss Convention, tear gas is a "Riot Control Agent", not a "Chemical Weapon".

See https://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/articles/ar... .

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

#76

Post by missedthecue »

john_the_writer wrote: post #64
dylan604 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Don't get me wrong, the Germans had it coming, See, now there you go, giving in to the same logic you're trying to make fun of in the first sentence. Saying all Germans is like saying all Ukrainians welcome being annexed by Russia. Some probably went along because it seemed at the time the easiest way from receiving bullets into parts of their anatomy even if they didn't actually like it.

Yep. Grand-dad had a choice. They shoot him, his wife and kids, or he accepts being drafted.

The germans would execute the children of draft dodgers? Really?

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

#77

Post by cafard »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #14

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…

"Precision bombing" can use a little scrutiny of its own. The USAAF killed General McNair and quite a few of his troops in broad daylight.

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

#78

Post by StanislavPetrov »

samatman wrote: post #68
StanislavPetrov wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists and chemists around the world are going to be stunned to hear that phosphorus isn't a chemical. >White phosphorus munitions are weapons that use one of the common allotropes of the chemical element phosphorus. >In munitions, white phosphorus burns readily with flames of 800 °C (1,472 °F).[74][75] Incandescent particles from weapons using powdered white phosphorus as their payload produce extensive partial-…

That same page makes it perfectly clear that white phosphorus is not considered a chemical weapon. My degree is in chemistry. Phosphorus is indeed a chemical, so is lead. You are either deluded, which is unlikely, or deliberately lying in the hope of winning an argument. The latter is more likely to be the case: therefore, I have contempt for you. We won't interact again.

It is a chemical and it is used as a weapon, but according to you it is not a chemical weapon. If lead was being somehow weaponized and dropped on human beings by the military with deadly effects it too would classify as a chemical weapon. I have contempt for abject stupidity, and in an ideal world would never have to interact with anyone like you, but the world is far from ideal.

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

#79

Post by foogazi »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #14

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…

> The Americans sought to achieve this with strategic precision bombing. The UK sought to do so with mass bombing campaigns targeting industrial workers.

Note also that the British had been subjected to night bombing raids themselves

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

#80

Post by alan-crowe »

ceejayoz wrote: post #7
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…

I am both baffled and relieved that most terrorists seem to lack creativity.

Every-one needs to be a hero in their own head.

So you are fairly safe. You can only fall victim to heroic terrorist attacks.

But not as safe as that sounds. It is about being a hero according to the attackers head cannon, not your head cannon.

Terrorist attacks are down stream from culture. Keep an eye on what movies, novels, religions, and preachers call heroic. The terrorist attacks of 2052 will be distorted versions of what is heroic today.

Post reply on HN