The reason chemical weapons are banned is because (they’re monstrous and) they’re useless. You can fire a chlorine shell and if the wind is juuust right, it’ll kill anyone within a few meters. You know what else will kill anyone within a few meters? A normal artillery shell.
Except, chlorine gas can be blocked by an airtight gas mask and a chemical suit. They cost less than $500 for complete immunity to the weapon. Good luck finding a $500 flak vest that’ll stop a mortar though. And meanwhile, if you want to press the attack and benefit from your chemical weapons, there’s one slight problem before you advance: there’s a bunch of chlorine gas in the way.
In other words, it’s an unreliable and inferior weapon that gets in the way of modern military doctrine. Although there are some good niches in shitty armies by dictators who are too paranoid of coups to give their junior officers any independence or proper kit. Like the Iraq army that the US army utterly steamrolled in 2005.
Far from useless against unprotected troops - especially in area denial and degrading enemy combat effectiveness. The real issue of practicality is that they’re a matter of mutual deterrent - if Side A starts using chemical weapons, Side B may decide to start as well. But as you mentioned, we’ve solved the issue of protective equipment pretty thoroughly, so in all but the most lopsided of conflicts (Iran-Iraq War, Syrian Civil War, police against protesters), escalation does not actually give either side an advantage beyond the initial shock, and introduces a lot of unnecessary defensive and offensive logistics, the total effect of which is likely difficult to determine. How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth keeping a platoon of soldiers in gas masks for a few hours longer? How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth the enemy shelling you in turn and forcing you to spend valuable resources and logistics lines on NBC gear? Who comes out with the advantage in this asymmetric exchange - the one with more resources, or the one with fewer? Nightmare to tell.
Russia currently is using chemical weapons effectively in Ukraine - namely, tear gas. Great for disabling dug-in enemies so mobik meat cube ingredients mass infantry assaults can advance. We (the West) also use chemical weapons effectively - we claim WP as a smokescreen, but its application tends to be very, uh, ‘dual-use’ in smoking troops out of entrenched positions. In both cases, the effectiveness relies on deniability and prevention of escalation.
Disagree. Gas is perfect for underground bunkers. Being heavier than air it will sink down into the bunker and displace oxygen. Sure you can wear a suit, but for how long? And do you have enough suits for everyone?
On the bright side, think of how clean all our pools are going to be with all this chlorine everywhere.
Okay Cicero, let’s get you back to your isolated country estate
The reason chemical weapons are banned is because (they’re monstrous and) they’re useless. You can fire a chlorine shell and if the wind is juuust right, it’ll kill anyone within a few meters. You know what else will kill anyone within a few meters? A normal artillery shell.
Except, chlorine gas can be blocked by an airtight gas mask and a chemical suit. They cost less than $500 for complete immunity to the weapon. Good luck finding a $500 flak vest that’ll stop a mortar though. And meanwhile, if you want to press the attack and benefit from your chemical weapons, there’s one slight problem before you advance: there’s a bunch of chlorine gas in the way.
In other words, it’s an unreliable and inferior weapon that gets in the way of modern military doctrine. Although there are some good niches in shitty armies by dictators who are too paranoid of coups to give their junior officers any independence or proper kit. Like the Iraq army that the US army utterly steamrolled in 2005.
Far from useless against unprotected troops - especially in area denial and degrading enemy combat effectiveness. The real issue of practicality is that they’re a matter of mutual deterrent - if Side A starts using chemical weapons, Side B may decide to start as well. But as you mentioned, we’ve solved the issue of protective equipment pretty thoroughly, so in all but the most lopsided of conflicts (Iran-Iraq War, Syrian Civil War, police against protesters), escalation does not actually give either side an advantage beyond the initial shock, and introduces a lot of unnecessary defensive and offensive logistics, the total effect of which is likely difficult to determine. How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth keeping a platoon of soldiers in gas masks for a few hours longer? How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth the enemy shelling you in turn and forcing you to spend valuable resources and logistics lines on NBC gear? Who comes out with the advantage in this asymmetric exchange - the one with more resources, or the one with fewer? Nightmare to tell.
Russia currently is using chemical weapons effectively in Ukraine - namely, tear gas. Great for disabling dug-in enemies so
mobik meat cube ingredientsmass infantry assaults can advance. We (the West) also use chemical weapons effectively - we claim WP as a smokescreen, but its application tends to be very, uh, ‘dual-use’ in smoking troops out of entrenched positions. In both cases, the effectiveness relies on deniability and prevention of escalation.Disagree. Gas is perfect for underground bunkers. Being heavier than air it will sink down into the bunker and displace oxygen. Sure you can wear a suit, but for how long? And do you have enough suits for everyone?
On the bright side, think of how clean all our pools are going to be with all this chlorine everywhere.
I really enjoy the smell of a perfectly balanced pool in the summer.