Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
The benefit in the war field is that you need very little exposure to a chemical weapon to die. A droplet is enough. On top of that you don't need to breath it in, skin contact even at the smallest scale will kill you.
Even if you manage to survive, your stuck with a lifetime of real health concerns from blindness to paralysis to a loss of bodily control.
Its a horrible horrible agent and for civilians there's no protection.
Blister agents like mustard gas are extremely painful because they're designed to burn you and raise massive blisters and if you inhale it your lungs blister.
the odd thing about mustard gas is it isn't a very effective killer, like a nerve agent, but if you don't receive a fatal dose, your stuck with a lifetime of serious health and breathing issues.
|
The other benefit is you incur zero casualties yourself while inflict large death & even worse wounded.
To be chemical weapons aren't about maximum body count. They are about making a fighting force ineffective by creating an overwhelming number of causalities. Causalities are a large drain on the a fighting force logistically.
The dead are easy to deal with, the wounded are not.
If I was to set aside my humanity, I would advocate for the use of chemical weapons.