The most effective ones remain active on surfaces for a prolonged time making them worse than fallout if you want to capture the area.
The ones that don't cause long term contamination just aren't that effective, Hollywood likes to talk about "one teaspoon could kill a city" but that is just taking the LD50 and assuming perfect distrubution without anyone getting more than a minimum lethal dose or any landing on anything but a person.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_subway_sarin_attack
>expose thousands of people to sarin
>1,000 get sick
>14 die

>>65565464
so they are basicaly a big fucking nothing burger that you can use to scare normies into supporting whatever war

>>65565454
>do bioweapons and nerve agents offer any deterence that nukes do not
no, they are practically useless in this regard

>>65565470
no
see Iraq 1991

Why is the catalog being spammed with frogs?

>>65565454
That doesn't work, it just says IP temporarily blocked because of abuse, btw.

>>65565500
It chemos out redditors and we're all tired of the anti gun faggots that come here to do their political shilling, fuck Kamala and fuck you.

>>65565527
>That doesn't work,
i can testify to the contrary,

ban check

>>65565454
It hasn't really been tried. I can't think of any third world countries that have said "i have chemical weapons leave me alone." Any of them that do synthesize nerve agents use them. Iraq used them multiple times, Syria might have used one or at least used chlorine a couple times. It just doesn’t have the shock value that a nuclear explosion has.

Chemical weapons are still dangerous, just on a smaller scale. They're very dependent on weather cooperating and victims being in an area getting exposed. If you look at gas use in WWI while there were some successful attacks they were countered pretty quickly by new masks and filters.
>t. HazMat tech

>>65565537
Aren't they mostly useful against massed infantry, too? That seems like a problem in the era of jet fighters and drones.