What's the modern doctrine for deployment of chemical weapons? Are they still being used for area denial like in ww1 or has that doctrine shifted?Would it still be accurate to call these anti personele tools, or are we seeing them deployed to deny hard targets, spraying a radar station with poison etc.
apparently the doctrine is to invite the CIA and NATO to take over your nation thus triggering their neighbor to launch a destructive war where you will then get kit with nukes and bio chem.
It seems like with drone warfare conventional explosive is still the preference, which I find surprising given the weight/ lethality ratio and the drones innate resistance to chemical agents. But then I suppose in close combat and short range the priority is causing instant casualty, and massed targets aren't common, and the friendly fire risk is hard to mitigate at the point you're using arial dispersion.And you probably prefer the explosive to damage targets of opportunity, fuel, munitions, heavy weapons. So I suppose I understand it but at some point there's going to be a strong driver to use chemical weapons against infantry.
Five years ago, I lost thirty thousand nations in the blink of an eye, and the CIA and NATO just fuckin' watched. Tomorrow, there will be no shortage of triggered neighbors, no shortage of kit with nukes and bio chem. I know you understand.
I refuse to believe that anyone posting on /k/ isn't aware of the widespread bans on chemical/biological weapons.
