most major powers got rid of them because Nukes are far more effective especially at the field tactical level.
I tend to think that Germany really didn't have them as an active part of their arsenal because Hitler lived through WW1 and was temporarily blinded as a result of a mustard gas attack. (His penis also probably shrunk to the size of a pea which would explain why he was so angry).
tactically WW2 probably wouldn't have been a "good war" for chemical weapons in the battlefield.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
It's why neither the Allies or the Germans were willing to deploy them during the bombing campaigns of WW2. Things would have degenerated very quickly.
Degenerated lower than fire bombing large urban areas.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
After WWI, chemical weapons were more looked at as a deterrent similar to nuclear weapons. NATO in fact made sarin a standard part of its chemical weapons stockpile from the 1950s through to the 1970s. As did the USSR.
I find often when it comes to warfare, morality changes as weapons and tactics become obsolete. They were considered fine when only the major powers had them. We like to think that we have just become more humane, but I think we have just become more efficient. Once everyone has drone technology, there will probably be a move to ban those as well.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 04-07-2017 at 12:43 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
The now universally accepted viewpoint - that war is hell - was born from the combination of trench warfare and mustard gas, which was so absolutely horrifying that it completely altered what combat meant to people.
I would argue that gas attacks were more a symptom and an icon of the general inhumanity of WW1 than something which altered things on it's own. WW1 in general was a rather mind-blowingly brutal war. There are not a lot of wars before or since where "bleeding the enemy dry" was considered a viable strategy on a national scale, and that's just a part of it.
However, I would also argue that "war used to be more glorious" is somewhat similar to the claim "youth of today are spoiled". Meaning, every historical period probably sees old wars as more romantic than recent ones. Medieval times for example produced plenty of art depicting war as scenes of horror, and condemnations of war as utterly immoral by people living in those times.
The horror however is in the details of war. As time goes by, those detailed descriptions of atrocities and the horrible human cost become less relevant. Pointless slaughters that achieved nothing are forgotten, as for the most part are small scale ethnic or religious cleansings. Mostly only the key battles that "changed history" are remembered, and often romanticed by the victors as the glorious past, and anti-war movements and pacifists fall more or less out of the picture as trivia. (Very understandably. If the war was fought, the anti-war sentiment IS trivia. If the anti-war sentiments won, there isn't a war which can be talked about later.)
(Sorry, I can't help being sidetracked by history )
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
I would argue that gas attacks were more a symptom and an icon of the general inhumanity of WW1 than something which altered things on it's own. WW1 in general was a rather mind-blowingly brutal war. There are not a lot of wars before or since where "bleeding the enemy dry" was considered a viable strategy on a national scale, and that's just a part of it.
Gas, and attrition tactics, were employed out of maddening frustration with the impasse of the Western Front. Nobody went into the Great War with the intention or expectation that it would be any more brutal than wars in the past. But the technology of the time, along with the enormous armies made possible by mass conscription, gave heavy advantages to the defensive. Countries could take a punch like never before. They could take dozens of punches, it turned out. It was the Ali-Frazier of warfare.
Once the war was generating an unprecedented butcher's toll, the combatants became ever more desperate to break the impasse. Very quickly, they reached a point of no return where only total victory was acceptable. That's when the ghastly calculations of mass casualties took over.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Beirut (AFP) - Two warplanes took off from a central Syrian airbase Friday hours after it was struck by US missiles and carried out bombing raids nearby, a monitoring group said.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the aircraft "took off from inside the Shayrat base, which is partially back in service, and struck targets near Palmyra".
Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman could not specify whether they were Syrian or Russian planes, but said they were Sukhoi jets, which both Damascus and its ally Moscow use.
The Britain-based group said the aircraft targeted territory controlled by the Islamic State jihadist group, which holds parts of the central Syrian province of Homs.
Not especially though. I would say they are probably best used as a kind of terror weapon, but don't have much use beyond that. They are too easily countered, and dependent on weather conditions to be an effective weapon of war.
Chemical weapons are massively effective at doing 2 things, creating vast numbers of casualties to completely swamp medical facilities when used in a civilian context and reducing the effectiveness of military forces due to them having to operate in the NBC suits, this is especially the case in hot climates.
They are not designed to kill, they are designed to clog up an enemy facilities and slow down their forces.
Beirut (AFP) - Two warplanes took off from a central Syrian airbase Friday hours after it was struck by US missiles and carried out bombing raids nearby, a monitoring group said.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the aircraft "took off from inside the Shayrat base, which is partially back in service, and struck targets near Palmyra".
Observatory head Rami Abdel Rahman could not specify whether they were Syrian or Russian planes, but said they were Sukhoi jets, which both Damascus and its ally Moscow use.
The Britain-based group said the aircraft targeted territory controlled by the Islamic State jihadist group, which holds parts of the central Syrian province of Homs.
What!! why you might almost think they knew the strike was coming and hid their best jets out of the way just so it would look like Trump wasn't Putin's lap dog, if you was of a suspicious nature that is.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
What!! why you might almost think they knew the strike was coming and hid their best jets out of the way just so it would look like Trump wasn't Putin's lap dog, if you was of a suspicious nature that is.
It's not just planes, obviously those were going to be moved if they notified the Russians ahead of time. It's the embarrassment that it's still a functioning airbase.
The Following User Says Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
It's not just planes, obviously those were going to be moved if they notified the Russians ahead of time. It's the embarrassment that it's still a functioning airbase.
That's why this poem, which I would consider probably my favourite piece of art to ever come out of war, was so jarring to the contemporary sensibilities.
With Baldrick a close second.
__________________
The Following User Says Thank You to Bagor For This Useful Post:
Gas, and attrition tactics, were employed out of maddening frustration with the impasse of the Western Front. Nobody went into the Great War with the intention or expectation that it would be any more brutal than wars in the past. But the technology of the time, along with the enormous armies made possible by mass conscription, gave heavy advantages to the defensive. Countries could take a punch like never before. They could take dozens of punches, it turned out. It was the Ali-Frazier of warfare.
Once the war was generating an unprecedented butcher's toll, the combatants became ever more desperate to break the impasse. Very quickly, they reached a point of no return where only total victory was acceptable. That's when the ghastly calculations of mass casualties took over.
The only thing I would add to that was that gas was a new and mostly untested weapon at that time. Most likely it would have been used to some extent simply because that's what you do with new weapons during wartime. (But of course it might have been a short experiment.)
Btw, what you said actually made me think of a very simple answer to why Assad would use chemical weapons; frustration over a prolonged war and escalation of brutality.
The Syrian civil recently turned 6. It's already longer than for example either World War. While it's not the Western front, it hasn't exactly been blitzkrieg either. Assads army and supporting militias have suffered 100-150,000 casualties. He's got about 250k men currently, so that's huge losses. In general the war has been really bloody, and large parts of the country are in ruins. While Assads troops have the upper hand currently, real gains have been slow and the war isn't showing signs of ending soon. Most likely at this point moral isn't high on any side of the war, and all the troops must be exhausted. Prolonged war doesn't take a toll on just the soldiers. Even nervous breakdowns in military leadership are not rare in wars like this.
We can also consider the possibility of retaliation for an atrocity that didn't make news. (After all, the target was Salafist jihadist troops, and we know what they're capable of.)
Considering all of the above, it becomes really easy to see why Assad would authorize the use of chemical weapons.
From that POV, a quick US retaliation was probably a good idea, because fear of further US involvement in the war might be the only thing keeping chemical weapons still mostly in storage.
The Following User Says Thank You to Itse For This Useful Post:
The only thing this attack did was to take the focus off of Trump's connections to Russia and the Russian involvement in the 2016 election. I wonder if Trump is prancing around Mar-a-Logo in a flight suit in front of a Mission Accomplished banner?
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
The only thing this attack did was to take the focus off of Trump's connections to Russia and the Russian involvement in the 2016 election. I wonder if Trump is prancing around Mar-a-Logo in a flight suit in front of a Mission Accomplished banner?
Did anyone think a single set of strikes was going to hamper Assad's long term capabilities?
The only thing this attack did was to take the focus off of Trump's connections to Russia and the Russian involvement in the 2016 election. I wonder if Trump is prancing around Mar-a-Logo in a flight suit in front of a Mission Accomplished banner?
That this attack did not render the airfield useless substantially changes my opinion on the 'correctness' of the strike.
A strike, where both the Syrians and Russians were warned, but the airfield rendered inoperable, seemed to me the best short-term reaction.
Quick, constrained, but focused and with a discernible effect.
Now I'm disappointed and of the opinion that it was theatrical and a waste of money, and more convinced than ever that the Trump administration will do anything to placate and mollify Russia. I honestly doubt Trump's willingness to respond if an American jet gets shot down.
Yeah, someone's gotta have a look into this airstrike. It seems highly unlikely to me that the US wouldn't be able to accurately estimate the efficacy of this attack (unless a bunch of missiles landed in adjacent fields or their warranties just expired or something).
Maybe it's more complicated than it seems, but how hard can it be to render an airfield inoperable when you've got dozens of missiles at your disposal?
If it was calculated to be something less than completely effective at disabling that airport, some questions should be asked.
)
