>sorry Private no can do poison gas is, uh, le bad, you're gonna have to clear this tunnel personWhy exactly are chemical weapons so verbotten? They only have a limited use case anyway (incendiaries are better in most situations), so what's wrong with using it in the niche scenarios where is IS the best option? Imagine dying because using a weapon that would have saved your life triggered a bunch of people over a century ago and because of that we can't use it anymore or something.
>>64479679>They only have a limited use case anywaylimited use case combined with the intensely painful way they can kill means that there is no reason to use them unless you want to cause unnecessary suffering for no tactical advantage >Imagine dying because using a weapon that would have saved your life triggered a bunch of people over a century ago and because of that we can't use it anymore or something.imagine dying a horrible, painful death because one side deployed it, now the other side deployed it, and now life is worse for both sides
>>64479691I'm sorry does poison gas have a monopoly on agonizing death or something? By that logic we can't use nukes either, better throw those out. And the willy pete. And the shrapnel shells. Pretty much anything that isn't nearly guaranteed to kill you instantly actually.
>>64479679because most major countries agreed to stop using them after WWI because shit sucked
>>64479707>I'm sorry does poison gas have a monopoly on agonizing death or somethingideally all things that cause an agonizing death should be bannedbut poison gas is both uniquely painful and uniquely useless, meaning the only reason it would be deployed would be to specifically cause suffering rather than victory> By that logic we can't use nukes either, better throw those out.we shouldwe dont because of realpolitik, but we should>And the shrapnel shellsfragmentation kills you quicker than poison gas and at least serves a battlefield role
>>64479679do you want the practical answer or the racist answer?
>>64479679Chemical weapons aren't especially useful even in that specific scenario. The reason everyone abides by them being banned isn't rooted in any sort of morality, it's that they aren't worth producing.
>>64479679>this tunnel>poison gas>the best optionGassing the entrance to a tunnel isn't going to accomplish shit.>pump gas into entrance>have to sit around waiting for the gas to diffuse deeper into the tunnels, every meter taking exponentially longer>to say nothing of the possibility that there are s-bends or even true bulkheads present to slow the gas even further or stop it cold>all the while you're stuck babysitting your pump, praying one of the tunnel inhabitants doesn't pop out another entrance, saunter over, and shoot your shit upAbout the only use for gas is in shells as a point denial system, and it's not even good at that because the wind will promptly make off with it if you're outside.
>>64479691>limited use case combined with the intensely painful way they can kill means that there is no reason to use them unless you want to cause unnecessary suffering for no tactical advantageFear and panic are quite the tactical advantages, no?>imagine dying a horrible, painful death because one side deployed it, now the other side deployed it, and now life is worse for both sidesYou could make this argument for any kind of violence.
>>64479679We don't use it so it doesn't advance to world ending levels. Its already bad enough now imagine Dr. Fuctard makes a weapon that creates permanent area denial and self replicates, evolves and is slowly spreading across the planet. Its a very good idea to not promote research or use of chemical weapons in warfare. If you have the desire to do so you are a short sighted fool.
>>64479679“Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee”
>>64479733Are they not one in the same?
>>64479707>I'm sorry does poison gas have a monopoly on agonizing death or something?No. Taking a frag or a bullet to the gut can be just as miserable.The real reason is that humans have an innate revulsion to things that are toxic. It's why we hate the smell of shit and of rotten things, it's a built-in self-protection mechanism. Yes, other things like radiation, fire, or the right kind of physical injury can be amazingly painful and can cause slow death over a period of many many days. But those don't trigger the innate monkeybrain fear of poison the same way.
>>64479707>By that logic we can't use nukes either
>>64479679Because unless you are planning to spend more than 2 weeks in the same position without doing much, artillery, airplanes or cruise missiles are>Faster>Simpler>Even more deadly(when properly used)Give me a thousand tunnels that would justify using neurotoxic gas and I will quickly reply that by today's standards good intelligence and precision can make short work of those.Nukes and biological weapons have similar rules. You use a nuke when you know you can't break through but need to asap, and biological when you are so weak that you know you can't deal with the enemy in equal terms, or when things are so static and lasting that destroying its ecosystem is a viable strategy.And as you might imagine, serious armies, the ones that are well armed, prepared, budgeted and don't overstimate their capabilities do not use them because it is wasteful.
>>64479707>By that logic we can't use nukes eitherWe don't
>>64481959>destroying its ecosystem is a viable strategy.Where does this idea that chemical weapons necessarily cause lasting environmental damage come from? Most of them have no lingering effects, which cannot be said about a bomb or artillery crater.
>>64481967Yes, I was referring to biological weapons
>>64480650>Fear and panic are quite the tactical advantages, no?Are they?They are operational avantages at best.
OP is a Prussian subhuman.
>>64479679If you are competent in modern maneuver war chemical weapons don't give you any major boost, they merely make things less fun.The role of chemical weapons historically is a cope: nations which can't do modern warfare, like Iran, Iraq, or the warring parties of WW1 use it in hope they can break the deadlock, and typically it's not good enough to do that.That's why it's bad. If something's horrible but it gives major benefits, it doesn't get banned - see nukes. Collateral damage is fully acceptable when it gives military results. Things which are horrible and give no benefits are what get banned.This is why armies ban autistic retards who think doing war crimes is good.
Chemical weapons are mainly for doing war crimes.They are too useless in an actual battlefield scenario, the circumstances of WW1 are difficult to replicate now that airplanes exist.
>>64481967>Most of them have no lingering effectsWrong.
They aren't used because (a) they aren't as effective as they should be on paper, (b) they aren't worth the immediate propaganda hit your side takes when you use themThe very first German gas attack at ypres was defended successfully by a Canadian Scots regiment - men with no gas masks, wearing kiltsTbqh chemicals are probably a lot more effective now so (b) is the main reason, and I doubt it would last in a real hot world war 3
>>64479707Theres only a handful of circumstances you can use WP, and if you tried to intentionally use it on soft targets, JAG will have a conniption, fucktard.Basically the only time you're ever allowed to use it is to "mark armored targets" and provide a smoke screen for a breach.And yes, chemical weapons suck at killing, and they tend to do this thing where they persist well after a conflict making it a fucking nightmare to clean up. Christ, theres forests you're not allowed to go into in France not because of UXO, but because after it rains, chemical weapon residue from World War fucking 1 seeps out of the god damn ground. So yes, theres real fucking good reasons to ban chemical weapons.
>>64481032I think you just confused chemical weapons with biological weapons.
>>64481032I have some bad news.
>>64483296That shit's fake as fuck. We don't format our documents like that
