
Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore? - nkurz
https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-chemical-weapons-anymore/
======
rayrrr
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 ecstasy of fumbling, Fitting the clumsy helmets just
in time; But someone still was yelling out and stumbling And flound'ring like
a man in fire or lime... Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.

In all my dreams, before my helpless sight, He plunges at me, guttering,
choking, drowning.

If in some smothering dreams you too could pace Behind the wagon that we flung
him in, And watch the white eyes writhing in his face, His hanging face, like
a devil's sick of sin; If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood Come
gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs, Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,— My friend, you would not tell
with such high zest To children ardent for some desperate glory, The old Lie:
Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori.

~~~
cmroanirgo
I remember reading this before, but don't recall the author... Who was it?

Regarding the article: it seems to miss the obvious points, and sounds almost
sociopathic in its use of literary lyricism to suggest that chemical weapons
should be regarded as a viable weapon, if only it weren't for the military
weaknesses it produces.

> _the narrative I got was fairly clear: we didn’t use chemical weapons
> because after World War I the nations of the world got together and decided
> that chemical weapons were just too horrible and banned them, and that this
> was a sign of something called ‘progress.’_

The use of chemical weapons, as parent's comment writes, is indiscriminate in
who and what it affects, whether it be enemy or own soldiers, or innocents:
women, children, animals and even fauna. To have your skin melt, or your lungs
liquified because some monster on the other side cooked up a recipe shows how
inhumane and lacking in compassion people can be.

I recall being told why modern military don't use high calibre rifles anymore
(303 or 762): because a lower calibre tends to wound the enemy, which means
that 2 or more enemy soldiers are needed to help their comrade out... Hence 1
smaller & lighter bullet can take out 2 or more of the enemy. That is, modern
warfare is about incapacitating an enemy's ability to fight back. This is why
sanctions, targetting infrastructure, stealth attack, etc, is what you see on
the news all the time.

~~~
ThrowawayR2
I think it's well established in the literature that the modern military
doesn't use the old larger battle rifle cartridges anymore because the extra
range it offered was almost never needed and the smaller assault rifle
cartridge allows more ammunition to be carried by each soldier.

~~~
j9461701
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.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
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).

~~~
CydeWeys
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.

------
totorovirus
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 soldiers. The most
probable attack against us will begin with spreading chemical gas on air to
crush the first defense line in the borderline.

If situation become really bad and raw - killing all the civilians - chemical
weapon would still be a very effective weapon I think.

~~~
brazzy
> 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.

~~~
23B1
> terrorizing the population into surrendering.

This is asymmetrical warfare in a nutshell

~~~
jcranmer
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.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
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.

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

~~~
clacke2
Would they have even been there if not for the terrorism?

------
pc2g4d
The trouble with realpolitik is when you get more cynical than reality itself.
Instead of a binary---either the morality of chemical weapons caused their
ban, or their uselessness in battle did---why not take a supply/demand,
cost/benefit sort of approach? The moral repugnance of weapons of mass
destruction makes them more costly to the users---if they delegitimize your
war effort, what have you really gained? They ceased to be used when the costs
outweighed the benefits. Therefore the moral repugnance of them likely
hastened their abandonment, even if battlefield effectiveness was the greater
influence.

~~~
jvanderbot
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
potentially demoralize your own soldiers, who don’t want to see themselves as
delivering inhumane weapons – it’s pretty clear why would wouldn’t bother."

~~~
j9461701
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 targeting, is very
unlikely to hit its target and will likely explode some random unpopulated
building. A 1,000 ton mustard gas bomb, though it won't hit its target
(because WW2 era bombing accuracy), will still have its payload disperse over
a wide area and is utterly horrific to deal with. As the article notes, the
1995 sarin attack in Japan injured over _1,000_ people. Chemical weapons may
not be good for winning a battle, but they're perfect as a terror weapon meant
to go after civilians.

In a sense, chemical weapons are a kind of 'poor man's nuke'. Russia and
America are standing down their chemical weapons because they have _actual_
nukes, and don't need to also have 2nd rate knock offs.

The article tries to point to WW2 as an example of nations being in
existential peril, and still not using chemical weapons, and concluding this
means they were ineffective even as terror weapons. But I think that doesn't
hold water upon closer analysis - the moment a single German soldier's boot
stepped foot on the British isles, which is to say the UK actually faced
imminent threat of conquest, Churchill planned to quote "drench [Germany] in
gas".

Later on in the war chemical weapons were avoided not for fear of retaliation
in itself, but for fear of how one's own people would respond to said
retaliation. If you are Great Britain, and public morale for the war is
hanging on by a thread, do you want to roll the dice and gas attack Germany -
thereby causing Germany to gas attack your civilians - and risk support for
the war collapsing? In 1944 Churchill asked for a 'cold blooded analysis'
about gassing Germany, and the response that came back was basically "We're
already winning the war, and mass gas deployment would be needlessly taking
chances. Do not do it!". Churchill famously disagreed with this analysis, but
didn't push the matter any further.

~~~
kelnos
> _As the article notes, the 1995 sarin attack in Japan injured over 1,000
> people._

Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely _killed_
all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have?

> _In a sense, chemical weapons are a kind of 'poor man's nuke'. Russia and
> America are standing down their chemical weapons because they have actual
> nukes, and don't need to also have 2nd rate knock offs._

The article explicitly notes this as well, that chemical weapons are only
really used by weaker, less-monied, static-system militaries. And even then,
they're only effective against similar adversaries, not against more modern
enemies.

But "poor man's nuke" isn't even really a great characterization from the
perspective of the US or Russia: with a modern military, chemical weapons _do
less damage_ than a cheaper, lighter, easier-to-deploy explosive. They're not
a "poor man's nuke", they're just a poor man's _weapon_ , period.

~~~
j9461701
>Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely killed
all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have?

Looking it up on wikipedia, most suicide bomber vests weigh roughly as much (5
kg) or up to 4 times as much (20 kg) as all the sarin used in this attack
(5.45 kg). I've never heard of a single suicide bomber, using a vest, injuring
1,000 people. So I am inclined to think the chemical approach is more
efficacious.

In fact that's another little nitpick I have with the article - it's high
explosives that heavily benefit from tightly packed situations, as they're a
one-and-done sort of deal. The sarin gas though was able to be spread all
along a tube system, and cause problems for huge amounts of people.

~~~
afthonos
“Equivalent” is also a matter of perspective. For a terrorist, procuring the
necessary explosives to injure 1000 people may be harder than procuring the
equivalent sarin gas. For a state, the calculus changes, as do goals. Storage,
transportation, safety (states are much less likely to be willing to have
their own soldiers die than terror cells), all those concerns can tip the
balance, especially for a strong state with a modern army.

~~~
lstodd
> procuring the necessary explosives to injure 1000 people may be harder than
> procuring the equivalent sarin gas

Bullshit.

Procuring sarin is nontrivial organic synthesis. Procuring ANFO is just a
question of ordering some diesel and fertilizer.

------
kitteh
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 to watch
some training video on nerve agents, get issued a gas mask and the atropine
shot then escorted to the facility. He said during the whole time he was
incredibly nervous as the evacuation route involved running back up into the
warehouse then through an exit.

~~~
rsynnott
> 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 warheads.

~~~
Spooky23
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.

~~~
Balgair
For instance: [https://www.businessinsider.com/kitty-litter-nuclear-
waste-a...](https://www.businessinsider.com/kitty-litter-nuclear-waste-
accident-2016-8?op=1)

------
blunte
This is an excellent and well written essay that answers its own question.

But I will offer my own answer. Grooups generally don't use chemical weapons
because such use is too obvious too unsettling to viewers/supporters. They
want the outcome, whatever it may be, but they don't want to look like they
are greedy or insensitive or anti(or counter)-religious [generally speaking,
they don't want to appear overtly confrontational].

Things must be done just slightly less aggressively than will upset the
general population/supporters who fund the endeavors.

In Earth-time, this discussion is mostly academic. The horrors which we
inflict upon each other is far less than the likely destruction we invite upon
ourselves as a species through our collective behaviors (environmentally
speaking). The human existence on this planet is probably (in the mathematical
sense) very short.

I suspect the real concern is that we or someone we know may suffer some
extended period of pain because of chemical or other non-instant-death
conflict. People think they are afraid of dying, but usually it is more that
they are afraid of a slow death which includes pain and anguish.

~~~
tehjoker
It probably has more to do with something like gas being easier to produce so
western countries can paint poorer countries as villains more easily by
showing how they violate human rights. U.S. weapons such as napalm, white
phosphorous, cluster munitions, and land mines disfigure entire countries,
people, and children but the media and military have such a lock on the public
discourse that these images and stories are very sparsely shared.

Images of the bombing and napalm in Vietnam generated an incredible backlash
so the pentagon and their friends in the media conglomerates have been very
circumspect.

This is not in any way to condone the use of gas, far from it. It is to
condemn the actions of the US military and the strategic planners for using
human rights as a cudgel when our own crimes are so stark.

Note that the US provided Saddam with chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq trench
warfare of the 1980s. We later invaded Iraq to retrieve weapons we gave him.

~~~
dmurray
That's still the tail waggimg the dog. Once you decide that a weapon or tactic
is ineffective for you, but might be useful for your enemies, _then_ you
portray it as inhumane and sign treaties about it. There will always be some
weapon or tactic you can treat in this way.

------
shklnrj
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 senior soldier instructs
that when you see a dog - keep shooting, till it dies.

In old times, slow killing was considered to be much worse as compared to
sudden death. So maybe this is why we don't use chemical weapons.

~~~
behindsight
Apologies if I misunderstood, but I don't think that particular point was
missed; it seems to be the article's first stated viewpoint actually:

> the narrative I got was fairly clear: we didn’t use chemical weapons because
> after World War I the nations of the world got together and decided that
> chemical weapons were just too horrible and banned them, and that this was a
> sign of something called ‘progress.’

That point is even further iterated on in the conclusion when comparing them
to cluster munitions which as you put, "cause multi generation effects" due to
remaining active years after the conflict.

------
nabla9
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 rationalization is the long term damage for the civilians or
society (can be true), but mines and chemical weapons allow for smaller armies
slow down the advance of the enemy.

~~~
hajile
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).

------
TomMckenny
Another point of evidence that the author probably omitted out of politeness
are the nations that freely violated rules of war yet did not make (much) use
of chemical weapons: the nazis on the eastern front and wwii japan.

Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point
bullet.

Apparently killing a solider outright is not as destructive as driving him
long term onto the medical system. This is also one of the reasons caliber has
generally been dropped over time. The 1950s move to the 223 round is pretty
explicit on this.

~~~
nordsieck
> Also another technology banned because it don't work is the hollow point
> bullet.

1\. Hollow point bullets aren't banned. The US Army just adopted them recently
- M1153.

2\. Hollow point bullets are very effective compared to ball ammo. There is
plenty of research that's been done on this (see Martin Fackler). However,
pistols are much less effective than rifles.

> Apparently killing a solider outright is not as destructive as driving him
> long term onto the medical system. This is also one of the reasons caliber
> has generally been dropped over time. The 1950s move to the 223 round is
> pretty explicit on this.

1\. This is a pervasive myth. There is absolutely no evidence of this from
primary sources. The goal of shooting people is and has always been to kill
them.

2\. The reason calibers have dropped over time has nothing to do with making
them less lethal. It's because they're lighter and smaller (easier to carry
more of them), and they shoot flatter and faster (easier to hit targets).

~~~
cullenking
Hollow points are against the Geneva convention. The round you linked is only
for use in special circumstances to prevent over penetration, Things like
terrorist hostage rescue. They won’t and can’t be legally used in general
warfare.

There was actually a big argument in the past over match grade rounds that
have a dimpled front and a hollowed core, which keeps the weight toward the
back of the round. They aren’t effective in hunting for the same reason they
aren’t considered a hollow point by the military.

~~~
nordsieck
> Hollow points are against the Geneva convention. The round you linked is
> only for use in special circumstances to prevent over penetration, Things
> like terrorist hostage rescue. They won’t and can’t be legally used in
> general warfare.

You're wrong.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-
point_bullet#Legality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow-
point_bullet#Legality)

~~~
cullenking
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.

~~~
masonic
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.

~~~
cullenking
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.

~~~
int_19h
The US military has authorized the use of hollow point rounds as needed. They
just don't believe that it's necessary most of the time in combat. Which is
entirely correct - modern FMJ rifle ammo achieves similar and better terminal
ballistics via fragmentation, without sacrificing armor penetration or flight
ballistics like hollowpoints. But for 9mm, the equation is different - hence
why M1153 is a thing, and is issued broadly to _military_ units.

------
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...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_chemical_weapons_program)
) -- this program was decommissioned by President George Bush in 1993, but the
last of the munitions WON'T BE REMOVED UNTIL 2023.

~~~
hajile
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.

------
ggm
It's indiscriminate and insufficiently useful because occupying the field
demands decontamination and collateral damages are ruinous. It's also illegal
which may seem odd but 'just war' imposes constraints. Troops are less
effective in CBW uniforms and atropine (and other) drugs deeply unpleasant.
Neither side wants it, Syria aside.

Unneeded force wastes effort. We don't use napalm either. White phosphorus is
used. Sadly. As is depleted uranium which wreaks havoc with dust. Weapons with
chemical consequence abound.

Teargas was used for bunker clearing. The Russians have used sleeping gases in
Chechen hostage rescues and people died from side effects. Nothing is simple
with gases.

Old mustard gas is heavy liquid, bad juju. These old school simple chemical
weapons were a giant toxic chemical love canal disaster. Belgium and France
still heavily contaminated around the trenches.

Binary weapons safer but still pretty bad. "Safe" to handle is very qualified
when field treatment is "hit it with a hammer" maintenance.

Ask yourself if the neutron bomb is still a part of rational war planning.
Three days later, it's all usable as is. No electromagnetic spike damage, just
smelly dead bodies to bury. Hmm. Bit niffy. Menthol up the nostrils is said to
work by forensics staff.

------
thom
Some would possibly count tear gas, white phosphorous or depleted uranium.

~~~
austincheney
None of that are chemical weapons any more than water in waterboarding. They
are all chemicals including water.

~~~
gonzo41
WP white phosphorous is actually a chemical weapon when used against people.
It is an anti material weapon and used for smoke screens. But read up on the
use of WP in fallujah.

~~~
amitport
Well that depends who you ask. US claimed it is not a chemical weapon because
it ""merely"" burns its subjects but doesn't poison them.

Though probably any other country using it like they used it in Fallujah would
have suffered consequences (note we're not talking about WP as used for
lighthing and gun laying. Allegedly (I'm not sure what the evidence status),
US used it for shake & bake on civilian population)

~~~
hansjorg
From the Wikipedia page on White phosphorus munitions:

> on 15 November 2005, US Department of Defence spokesman Lieutenant Colonel
> Barry Venable confirmed to the BBC that US forces had used white phosphorus
> as an incendiary weapon there

US shaked and baked children in Fallujah, but they were conveniently redefined
from children to enemy combatants at the time.

------
xzel
I stumbled onto this news documentary on the nerve gas stored in the US from
1973 very randomly maybe a year ago:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjA0EQPeUGM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjA0EQPeUGM)
. If you're interested in this type of stuff this documentary is incredible
and apparently won an Emmy. The number of problems with long term are mind
boggling technologically, even if people don't know its near them. The whole
idea if this place got bombed it would wipe out huge amount of people in the
surrounding area based on wind patterns is nuts, frankly. The whole process to
dismantle and then "store" the old gas is insane.

------
beloch
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 about gas attacks precisely because so many people
_survived_ them.

Chemical weapons and _surprise_ are, together, a deadly combination. What
might be combined with surprise in the future?

~~~
lopis
> What might be combined with surprise in the future?

From what you say, a chemical weapon would be pretty surprising today.

~~~
CydeWeys
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.

------
anthony_doan
WWI happened.

Historian see WWI as the war of chemists.

And WWII as the war of physicists.

------
DubiousPusher
Very interesting. I wrote a paper in college that argued a very similar line
of reasoning. I based this largely around the conversation that was had about
aerial bombing during the inter-war period.

During WWI a biplane or two was able to fly over Paris and drop a grenade. It
caused quite a scandal with some Navy high ups condemning the concept of
aerial bombardment altogether. By the end of the inter-war period there was a
strong stigma against it. The concept of using bombs on civilian centers was
pretty much unthinkable. Until of course the war began and it wasn't.
Throughout the war taboos were approach and broken one after another.

When the U.S. joined the war, there was a major row between U.S. and British
airforce commanders about using bombers at night. The U.S. thought it
unethical, especially since they had invested in a supposedly superior bomb
sight which was rendered essentially useless at night. The British, facing an
existential threat were not so scrupulous. Of course the night raids soon
began.

So by war's end there was virtually no size of bomb nor target that was much
unacceptable even though the idea of aerial bombing of even soldiers had been
distasteful at its start.

Give this, the only reason I could think that chemical weapons had not
followed the same slippery slope was that they were far less useful.

I got an A- on the paper, my teacher said it was good but too fringey. I
couldn't dig up the paper but I found the bibliography. If you're interested
in the subject give some of these sources a try. I especially enjoyed the
biography of Doolittle, "I Could Never Be So Lucky Again".

"The Bombing of Berlin in World War II." Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia The Free
Encyclopedia, 7 April 2012. Web. 10 April. 2012.

"The Bombing of Germany." American Experience. Writ. Zvi Dor-ner. Dir. Zvi
Dor-ner. PBS, 2010. Streaming.

"Bombing of Tokyo." Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, 3 April
2012. Web. 6 April. 2012.

Carlin, Dan. ”Logical Insanity.” Harcore History. dancarlin.com, 31 March
2012. Podcast. 6 April 2012.

Cheek, Dennis W. "Hiroshima and Nagasaki." Encyclopedia of Science,
Technology, and Ethics. Ed. Carl Mitcham. Vol. 2. Detroit: Macmillan Reference
USA, 2005. 921-924. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 16 Apr. 2012.

Doolittle. Gen. James H. and Carroll V. Glines. I Could Never Be So Lucky
Again. 1991. New York: Bantam Books, 2009. e-book.

"Firestorm." Wikipedia.org. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia, 13 April 2012.
Web. 14 April. 2012.

Hansen, Randall. Fire and Fury: The Allied Bombing of Germany 1942-1945. New
York: New American Library, 2009. e-book.

Truman, Harry S. "Harry S. Truman, Diary, July 25, 1945." Atomic Bomb:
Decision. n.d. Web. 10 Apr. 2012.

~~~
int_19h
> During WWI a biplane or two was able to fly over Paris and drop a grenade.
> It caused quite a scandal with some Navy high ups condemning the concept of
> aerial bombardment altogether.

It wasn't really new. Bombs have been dropped from balloons before then, and
_that_ caused enough of a scandal that the Hague Conventions of 1899 included
"Declaration on the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons". It
was only in effect for 5 years, though.

Poisonous gases were also banned in Hague, and that prohibition didn't have an
expiration date, so it was already a war crime in WW1.

------
JulianMorrison
They get used an awful lot against civilian populations who are protesting the
political status quo, globally.

Not mustard gas, no, but mace, pepper spray, tear gas, all of which can kill
or injure vulnerable people.

------
jrs95
I would argue we do use chemical weapons, but only in specific circumstances
in order to generate outrage about whoever we are claiming used them to
justify our own military action. The biggest value they have now _is_ how
offensive they are. And I dont mean "we" as in the United States or anything
like that, I mean humanity in general. No rational actor would ever decide to
use a chemical weapon unless they intended primarily to blame someone else for
it.

------
throwanem
tl;dr: Because they're tactically and strategically ineffective. They can make
serviceable assassination weapons, as can almost anything given the right
arrangement of circumstances, but as a tool of warfare, they suck.

What I'd really like to see is an analysis from a military historian's
perspective of why biological weapons are even more useless, with specific
reference to current events. The tl;dr there is that they're tactically
nonexistent, and strategically worse than merely ineffective because you can't
control either their spread or your borders well enough to avoid them blowing
back on you.

Of course, I'm not so naïve as to imagine such a thing would convince anyone
who needs convincing. It'd be a fun read if Mr. Devereaux did it, but I
suspect it would serve neither tactical nor strategic goals in the battle
against misinformation.

~~~
thedance
Why aren't chemical weapons (for example VX) effective area denial weapons?
They seem damned good for the purpose.

~~~
donw
Because they deny the area to you as well. Cleaning up a minefield is child's
play compared to dealing with nerve agents.

~~~
kjs3
No. Minefield can persist dangerous for decades. Nerve gas dissipates is
days/weeks. Nerve agents might clear the ground tactically, but they don't
hold it.

~~~
rodonn
There are solid/liquid forms that persist for much much longer. Look at the
efforts UK went through to clean up after the chemical attack in Salisbury
(which was a liquid in a perfume bottle).

~~~
vilhelm_s
Even the most long-lasting ones will still evaporate in a few weeks. (Of
course, if it's inside a bottle it will not evaporate, and if it's inside a
city you probably want to decontaminate it rather than wait).

~~~
rodonn
It's a bit hard to say for sure since it is all classified info for the most
part. This article cites one of the creators for claiming it could last for
years [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/novichok-nerve-
ag...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/novichok-nerve-agent-how-
salisbury-amesbury-incident-happen-explained-latest-a8433166.html)

------
GarvielLoken
What an ignorant article. The Soviet union was a peer to the "Western" and
"Modern System" and they would totally use chemical weapon during a conflict,
asymmetrical tactics and in general any underhand methods that they could
think of. Typical Nato way = The only way article. And the Soviet union was
more mechanized and earlier then the US. If anything Nato was the static
tactic user during the cold war.

Source:
[https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf](https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm100-2-1.pdf)
Page 186, section 16-3

~~~
ggm
The refusal of NATO to repudiate first strike and the decision to place troops
forward into the comecon borders did nothing to assuage paranoia inside the
sovuet union. Do not equate missiles in Cuba with the permanent stationing of
troops with tactical nukes on the landmass facing Russian satellite economies.

Many senior non US NATO staffers are believed to have agreed they'd disarm
Americans who even looked like latching up the missiles btw..

Seriously: if you wanted one thing to help defuse a world looking to CBW then
a president confident enough to repudiate first strike would have done it in
the 1950s and 1960s (my school navy cadet handbook in the seventies explained
CBW cleandown for ships in graphic detail at the back)

------
anovikov
We don't use chemical weapons because they have very poor military efficiency
- modern armies taught themselves very well to protect against them, they will
mostly harm civilians and make any postwar arrangements very complicated. Also
they are very indiscriminate and depend on factors such as wind and elements
way too much, so they are about as likely to harm own troops as the enemy.
Plus, why bother if we have, to kill military targets, high precision weapons
that do the job a lot better than chemicals ever could, and for wide area
targets or infrastructure, nukes?

~~~
jillesvangurp
That, and it's kind of frowned upon internationally thus exposing people
wielding these weapons to the possibility of ending up in a court room some
day. Ali Chemicali was eventually executed. So was his boss, Saddam Hussein.
In both cases, the use of chemical weapons against civilians was the main
thing they were convicted off.

------
onetimemanytime
cause it sucks for both sides, like really suck. So they took them out and
fight with the rest of arsenal

------
howmayiannoyyou
Deterrence.

All manner of WMD would be used absent a credible deterrent. Just ask the
residents of Aleppo or Halabja.

------
strategarius
Who are "we"? Assad regime and Russian mercenaries perfectly use it.

~~~
brazzy
Read the article.

------
adultSwim
Didn't the US use white phosphorus in Iraq?

------
RivieraKid
What's the summary of the article? I don't have the time to read it but am
curious about the answer...

------
thedirt0115
tl;dr: "Not because chemical weapons are immoral. Because they are
ineffective" :'(

~~~
throwanem
There's a saying, I forget where it originates but I want to say with either
Bismarck or von Schlieffen, to the effect that the closest thing to a moral
philosophy of warfare is that it should be pursued as brutally and ferociously
as necessary to make wars as short as they possibly can be.

Granted, it's as much of its time as were the men I named. But it nonetheless
does a good job, albeit implicitly, of pointing up that the best you can do in
warfare is to minimize its essential immorality.

~~~
jimbob45
It was the central thesis of season three of Game of Thrones.

~~~
throwanem
"Steal from the best."

------
KarlKemp
There's no way to decide the relative weight of uselessness and perceived
immorality of chemical weapons. Some people clearly do consider them horrible,
and it would be quite a surprise if none of those people were in any position
of power, from armed forces to civilian government to parliamentarians to
voters.

The argument otherwise rests on the assumption of perfect efficiency in
military procurement and decision-making. Does anyone believe the military
never uses "useless" technology?

They came up with a rationalisation for building that marginal nuclear bomb to
allow the 254th complete destruction of earth. I'm sure they could convince
themselves of the necessity of chemical weapons if motivated.

It’s also quite a feat to write about chemical weapons and use the Tokyo Sarin
attack as an example, and not Syria. Not only did the latter happen fairly
recently. It’s also an actual military using these weapons, not a cult. And if
Syria is to fresh and people here are among those doubting the reports, maybe
the Iraqi chemical weapons program from the Iran-Iraq war and later the
genocidal use against the Kurds is more trusted:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_chemical_weapons_program)
There, several thousand people were killed.

~~~
AlexMoffat
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 needed for battlefield and no procedures
for deploying them.

~~~
ken
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 dispose of chemical weapons aren't equally
happy to dispose of nuclear weapons.

Do American and Russian generals think that nuclear weapons will _become_
useful at some point in the future? Do countries like France believe this? The
French president hinted that they kept submarines with nuclear weapons
configured for terrorist attacks, but the deadliest terror attack in history
was carried out with box cutters, so it's hard to imagine how nuclear weapons
would help. Nuclear weapons could be useful (if horrific) against a Static
opponent, but not a Guerrilla one.

[1]: [https://thinkprogress.org/colin-powell-nuclear-weapons-
are-u...](https://thinkprogress.org/colin-powell-nuclear-weapons-are-
useless-4ab6657759c7/)

~~~
jcranmer
Nuclear weapons have long (since the late 50s at least) had a peculiar
calculus that amounts to the prisoner's dilemma: whether or not your adversary
has nuclear weapons, there is more value for you to have them, so you end up
in a situation where everyone feels justified to have them, even if it's the
worst situation overall.

This has created a few paradoxical situations. One of them is that their
strategic value lies primarily not in their use (which will not achieve any
result) but rather the threat of use, which may be sufficient to dissuade
leaders from committing to a war (arguably, this happened during the Cuban
Missile Crisis--both Kennedy and Khrushchev blanched at the prospect of
starting a nuclear war). Another interesting side effect is that this means
that the development of counter technologies produces staunch opposition:
nuclear war has to be seen as unwinnable for its deterrent value to be
effective.

Part of the motivation for nuclear weapons as a strategic (rather than
deterrent) option comes from the lineage of people who see strategic bombing
as an fast, cheap, easy way to win a war. For a century now, adherents have
predicted that once you started bombing a few cities indiscriminately, you'd
easily win a war. And people continue to argue this despite the rather thin
evidence for this proposition, and mountains of evidence in opposition.

