Serious question, why dont people use chemical weapons in war anymore?>Its a warcrimeIt's not like you are using a nuke. Nobody is going to do shit. All that matters is winning>It's inhumanegas mask and hazmat suit technology has gone a long way since ww1. I don't see how this is any different then using flamethrowers
>>65027671imagine playing chess (or idk stratego is a better analogy), but on both players' turns, they can drop a chem bomb that renders a square impassableat the end of the game your whole board is a wasteland and both sides can only retreatsource: my ass
>>65027671You need to be over 18 to use this board
>>65027671>Serious question, why dont people use chemical weapons in war anymore?It's not a serious question it's a shitty bait thread by a raging faggot (you).
>>65027716stop being grumpy
>>65027671
Even Hitler, pushed to the brink of ruin, didn't use it on the battlefield. Nobody wants a title lower than Hitler's.
>>65027671Not worth the hassle, same as any other warcrime. It's not that it doesn't work, it's just better for everyone involved to abstain from doing those kind of things.
>>65027671Because they're not terribly effective at actually contributing to a military victory and only invite retaliation in kind
>>65027671>gas mask and hazmat suit technology has gone a long way since ww1.I feel like you’ve just answered your question
People use them, though? Most recently Syria.There's just not much point to it. The historical use case was their use against static defences to suppress the defenders, and they were pretty good at it, leading to notable victories in late 1917 and early 1918 - but tanks turned out to be even better at it.Another use case was against tunnel networks and bunkers, notably by pic related (not specifically produced, just exhaust gasses, mind you), but that's a niche case that just doesn't matter much outside of Gaza or Mariupol.
>>65027816Yes, exactly. Gas takes time that you don't have against infantry. The US Army standard for getting a gas mask on is 7 seconds, and then you're back on the MG, and you're not even gaining an advantage from making the enemy wear a mask, because your own troops have to wear one when they go in as well.
>>65027671Huge pain in the ass for everyone involved, on top of making everyone hate you. Juice just isn't worth the squeeze outside of 20th century brown people misery wars
>>65027671>Serious question, why dont people use chemical weapons in war anymore?White phosphorous is arguably a chemical weapon and just as horrific if not moreso than mustard gas and gets used all the time, even by the IDF against civilians.The real reason we don't use chemical weapons is because doing so would mean there will be no quarter given to any captured soldiers anymore since the rules of warfare are no longer being respected at that point. Once you cross that line the other side has no reason not to launch sarin gas attacks against your civilians or just slaughter all POWs.
The last time it got used was in the Douma chemical attack. Let's pump those numbers back up and forget about that Geneva (Virgin) convention bullshit
>>65027891Utterly asinine take. Laws of war always fall apart in bits and pieces,specifically because nobody (sensible) wants to end up in that cycle of escalation. Either the victim logs it away for the trials after the war, or they say>whelp, guess we're just doing unrestricted submarine ops this warand get on with it. It tit-for-tats, not "oh no, somebody shelled a church, guess the whole book's out the window now".
>>65027783Chemical warfare in ww1 was very effective but also had a good chances of fucking with your own troops and causing more difficulties in your own advance than hampering the defenders
>>65027783White phosphorus has been used by the Israelis and Russians consistently. The Russians have been using tear gas to support their zerg rushes amongst other things.
>>65027671>Nobody is going to do shit.Third world retard, learn from history. Did you forget that the second invasion of Iraq was a multinational coalition, justified by even the POTENTIAL of chemical weapons?>inb4 muh oil, muh amerikkka bullyingThe ostensible chemical weapons were what sold the public and the international community. If you started dropping actual artillery shells full of sarin on enemies, in any amount and in any context, you would get gangraped so hard it would make the Gulf War look like a fucking joke
>>65027671>It's not like you are using a nuke. Nobody is going to do shit. All that matters is winningt. saddam hussein>gas mask and hazmat suit technology has gone a long way since ww1this is not a good case for using themany remotely noteworthy military has protective equipment, so you'll get maybe one use out of them if their intelligence doesn't catch on in time, after which it achieves nothing but inconveniencing all the grunts on both sides with having to wear and carry even more shit for the rest of the warthe end result is that it will do more harm to non-combatants unfortunate enough to exist in the general area than military targets, on account of an average civilian not keeping a stockpile of NBC gear
>>65027942The USA uses it too, it works great for burning arabs out of their tunnel systems.
>>65027671There was this story, call the little match girl...
>>65027891>even by the IDF against civiliansthat's not exactly a high bar
>>65027671Airborne agents can't be controlled and backfired several times during WW1.Surface agents last too long and make occupying dusted areas extremely risk.They are just shit for war, their only practical use is genocide.
>>65027671They were used by Iraq, Iran and Syria, plus possibly in Africa.Russia used various types of gasses, too.So it's just the civilized nations that decided to no longer use them.They'lll be used again in Asia, Africa etc.
>>65027671Because sure, forcing the enemy to wear chemical warfare suits makes everything they do harder, take longer and be more difficult. But now your soldiers also have to wear their suits, making everything harder, take longer and be more difficult. Congratulations, we've just made things worse for both of us for minimum benefit.
>>65027891>even by the IDF against civilians.Living muslims are unexploded ordnance and thus by definition not civilian.
>>65027671The main reason is that they're just not very effective. If you can deliver a chemical weapon to an enemy, you can probably kill them more reliably with an explosive. They also make things more difficult for your own soldiers.
>>65027671It's really only useful on the defense. And then when you're defending against dismounted infantry advancing on you which is a pretty uncommon set of circumstances. That's why the last notable (successful) use of it was when Saddam stopped the IRGC offensive across the Shat-Al-arab by using a bunch of Sarin and VX. Just the set of tactical situations where it is helpful is small, and uncommon in occurrence. In those situations it is pretty clutch though, without the chemical attacks it's very likely the IRGC would have broken through and rolled up most of Southern Iraq, the Iraqis were pretty fucked at that point of the war.
>>65027671civilian casualties, complicates logistics, can be ruined by weather being a little fussy. doesn't help that the really good ones linger too long to let you capitalize on damage and aren't picky about whose uniforms they stick to.
>>65027671> gas mask and hazmat suit technology has gone a long way since ww1Which is exactly why it’d be at best pointless to use chemical weapons. Also everyone and everything you send into a chemical environment will need to be decontaminated on the way out, taking time and resources you could’ve invested elsewhere. This is to say nothing of how badly you’re going to tank your troops morale if you use them on a populated area, or how pissed off and fanatical any surviving enemies are gonna be.
Everything chemical weapons do is done better by explosives or fire or both, but i'm actually curious, now that war is full of systems that are>semi autonomous or fully autonomous>lower yield but maximizing lethality>precise and able to navigate human structures and penetrateIe, a drone flying inside a building, into windows and around corridors and stairs, could you combine that with chemicals? Imagine not even having to release a huge cloud of murder gas to deny and area but mounting a squirt bottle with nerve gas that aerosolizes on the spot, and chasing individual soldiers to spray them like bugs. Or dropping a hand grenade-sized gas can that can smoke out a building without presenting a risk outdoors.You could make some scary things with modern tech.
>>65027671It's not worth the bullshit chemical weapons put you through. Sure, it'll kill the enemy but do you know what else kills the enemy? Explosives. Put a hole in a brick of C4 and nothing's going to happen. Put a hole in a can of VX and you've got dead workers and an entire depot that needs decontamination. Every single step along the way you need specialized training, specialized procedures, specialized protective equipment, and even specialized targeting because turns out POISON GAS IS WEATHER-SENSITIVE. Rain? You're fucked. Wind blowing the wrong direction? You're fucked. Wind blowing too fast? You're fucked. Possibility of local brushfires? You're fucked. Too cold? It depends on what type of mix but you're probably fucked. Worse, once you're known to use chemical weapons the enemy will develop counters. Gas masks. Protective clothing. Positive pressure systems on vehicles. Sure, they're not foolproof but they'll reduce the effectiveness of chemical weapons below that of conventional weapons. Worse, you're own troops will need to follow the same procedures just not to be killed by your own weapons. Again, I reiterate. It's Just Not Worth The Bullshit.
>>65029800>Worse, you're own troops will need to follow the same procedures just not to be killed by your own weapons.What if your own troops are robots and drones?
>>65027671>why dont people use chemical weapons in war anymoreTruth be told they're just not very practical and their efficacy heavily depends on a lot of factors like humidity, temperature, wind etc.In the open, gas or aerosol gets quickly blown away and diluted, things like mustard gas linger but at most they'll act like area denial for a couple of hours or days.If you are within artillery or airstrike range of the enemy, 99% of the time you're better off just delivering regular ordnance.>gas mask and hazmat suit technology has gone a long way since ww1Not really, no. They're still a massive bitch to fight in.
>>65027671Tryke is theyre shit unless you've got thousands of dudes in a single 1km trench line with Victorian era PPE.
>>65027671It's the same situation as using viruses or nukes though.Might actually backfire more, I can only imagine what kind of disability claims we'd have from our own troops if we started using chemical weapons.
>>65029251>Living slavs are unexploded ordnance and thus by definition not civilian.
>>65029814They aren't.
>>65029814The people handling the munitions and wrangling the drones are still flesh and blood. ...Also, some chemical weapons carry corrosive elements in order to penetrate gas masks. That'll probably fuck up any drone without protective measures.
>>65027671Because, you stupid juicebox-sucking island-kike, chemical weapons are extremely expensive, less effective than conventional ones, friendly fire your own troops as often as they kill the enemy, have the most negative PR known to man in the information age, and horrifically poison the land you shoot them at, whoch tends to be bad if you're aiming to conquer or regime change a place.
>>65029840>>65029437>>65029415>handling issues...Come to think of it of it, the most effective chemical weapon might be Tear Gas. Worse case scenario, you're own men will be out of action for a couple hours. Best case, you knock the enemy out of action for an hour, capture them while they're coughing their lungs out, and then claim it was a legitimate attempt to save lives. Still a war crime, tho.
Nigger
>>65033187>Page:NeverApril Fools?
