Posted: 11/14/2004 4:50:04 PM EDT
|
As most of us know, the US employed gas weapons and the like in the first World War. In fact, for quite some time we kept those weapons stockpiled, despite their use being illegal, in the event that the enemy broke the rules as well. We've also used defoliating agents as recently as Vietnam. So I have some questions: 1) Would the US ever use chemical weapons in war if the entire world went to hell? 2) Would you approve of the use of chemical weapons, such as mustard gas, against military installations? 3) Which countries are most likely to use chemical weapons against us? China, Korea, who else? |
(1) No, I don't think we ever would. Besides, as a tactical weapon, they simply are not that useful (2) No, there are more efficient means (3) North Korea is the most likely. They have TONS of stockpiles of nerve agents and the like, and are crazy enough to use them. |
| Most of our stockpile are in old, corroding shells. They are loaded with explosives,that can't be easily disasembled. Most people with any sense want to stay away from them. This does no apply to the new binary stuff, where the 2 chemicals used to produce it are stored seperate and away from a seperate explosive shell. Much, much safer |
Where did you get the left-wing, liberal idea that it was illegal for us to use them? We didn't sign the 1925 accords until 22 January 1975, and then only with the proviso that we would no longer be bound by the treaty if another nation used chemical weapons on us first. Our policy of retalitory use was 100% legal. You're parroting the liberal line that somehow the US is always at fault, and the root of all evil. Get the facts straight first. Ross |
*makes universally rude gesture* Don't be putting words in my mouth. Period. |
|
Chemical agents can be useful in certain instances. Chemical agents might be employed as a means to deny the enemy use of an area for maneuver, for example. Persistent agents can deny the use of ground for some time. Non persistent agents can also be used on an enemy with much shorter wait times to use the affected ground. Were chemicals used against us first I would support their use wholeheartedly. I would not support their use first. Having said this I don't think anybody would be too keen on using chemicals on us first as our policy of returning the favor with nukes is well known. Edited to clarify. |
If chemical weapons are used against US forces, tactical nukes are the response. |
|
Chemical and biological weapons are pretty much a weapon of last resort. The effects do not go away soon and there is a serious chance of killing as many of your own as you do the enemy. I was on the biological side of the army and 99.9% of what we did was geared towrds protection and decontamination rather than development of weaponised agents. Yes we have them but on the modern battlefield there are much better options to kill people and break things. The age of chem warfare <at least for the US.> is pretty much obsolete as long as we have a functional fighting force. mike |
I should add that while Agent Orange was developed as a herbicide to control the foilage of the Vietnam jungle it did contain a high level of TCDD dioxin. Similar to dibenzofurans and pcb's. This was a byproduct of the herbicide known to cause a variety of diseases many of which would prove to fatal. On a lighter note, it works great when I apply it around my tomatoes in the garden. No more pulling weeds or hoeing rows! 
|
|
If you look at my avatar you may see that I have a little experience in this area. Chemical stockpiles are a deterrent to other nations and are being destroyed.
By actual amount most of our remaining chemical agents are not in munitions any more but in bulk. Now this is not our non-stockpile amounts, just the stuff in our stock piles |