Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
1–10 of 84 posts
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#2Because 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.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#3Because 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 agents waiting to be unleashed.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#4Because 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.
I see you’ve read the blog post by noted military historian Bret Devereaux and boiled the whole thing down to three sentences for everyone, but you’ve missed some of the nuance that makes him so fascinating to read.
I recommend everyone else ignore this summary and give the link a click, acoup.blog’s always a delight.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#5We do. Probably every day some police force is gassing its own citizens with things that would be a war crime were they soldiers.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#6This 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, equipped army of professionals who will take minimal damage from chemical weapons, or they are a vulnerable population of civilians who will be massacred horribly if you use them.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#7Because 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…
I am both baffled and relieved that most terrorists seem to lack creativity.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#8Because 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…
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.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#9We do. Probably every day some police force is gassing its own citizens with things that would be a war crime were they soldiers.
Living in Seattle, I can attest that the police did riot and deploy chemical weapons.
Re: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?
#10Earlier 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.
I don't think its creativity limiting the actions, its factors of capability, reliability and gullibility of those carrying out the actions.
Batman style "poisoning the water supply" isnt really a viable option due to the complexities of pulling it off successfully.