User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:24:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Call me German, but several current situations would seem to beg for a VX based solution. Given that our enemies have them and will use them if we ever tangle for real, why do we want to deprive ourselves of the same option? This thread inspired by the what if the oil fields fall thread. I wish we had kept our neutron bomb program personally. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:24:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Slime is bad.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:24:35 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wish we had kept out neutron bomb program personally. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Call me German, but several current situations would seem to beg for a VX based solution. Given that our enemies have them and will use them if we ever tangle for real, why do we want to deprive ourselves of the same option? This thread inspired by the what if the oil fields fall thread. I wish we had kept out neutron bomb program personally. Heh, my dad and I were just talking about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:24:51 PM EDT
[#4]
You think they're all gone? Cute.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:26:19 PM EDT
[#5]
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles.
Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:26:55 PM EDT
[#6]
I think it had some thing to do with them leaking.
Not what you want to have to transport to a combat area. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:28:54 PM EDT
[#7]
To this day we are still destroying them. Our stockpiles were huge.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:30:54 PM EDT
[#8]
If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better. Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:31:11 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles. Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:31:58 PM EDT
[#10]
simple answer--discrimination is one of the criteria for the jus in bello component of the just war theory. even nuclear weapons are localized in their primary effects. bio is obviously the opposite of discrimination, and chem is somewhere in the middle.
but this is mostly a tag to read the responses of people who are more in the know than i.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:32:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles. Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war. War is disgusting. It'smade less so if it's SHORT. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:33:43 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better. Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons. You can use chem without the headaches of using nukes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:33:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Who says they are gone? The government?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:35:37 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better. Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons. errr...no. material destruction is inevitable with nuclear, and there are times when that is undesired. on an abstract level, chem/bio is probably the most efficient way to kill personnel, but efficient killing of personnel does not always mate with political strategy.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:37:05 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
War is disgusting. It'smade less so if it's SHORT. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles. Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war. War is disgusting. It'smade less so if it's SHORT. Unfortunately, the only way it would be shortened is when the images of what we were doing made it to the liberal media and our service men are made out to be monsters gassing women and children. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:39:08 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
simple answer--discrimination is one of the criteria for the jus in bello component of the just war theory. even nuclear weapons are localized in their primary effects. bio is obviously the opposite of discrimination, and chem is somewhere in the middle. but this is mostly a tag to read the responses of people who are more in the know than i. Just wars are an oxymoron. There is only survival and mission accomplishment. Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use. I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:40:25 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately, the only way it would be shortened is when the images of what we were doing made it to the liberal media and our service men are made out to be monsters gassing women and children. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles. Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war. War is disgusting. It'smade less so if it's SHORT. Unfortunately, the only way it would be shortened is when the images of what we were doing made it to the liberal media and our service men are made out to be monsters gassing women and children. Those images would make it to the enemy as well though, and to anyone else contemplating making a run at us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:40:46 PM EDT
[#18]
Some good info.
VX Nerve Gas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkbBnvz0rw0 A good watch. America's Nerve Gas Arsenal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjA0EQPeUGM |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:45:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Those weapons destroyed in the ChemDemil program were 50 and 60 years old. Some leaking. It was tough enough moving then to propose built incinerators, can't imaging moving them to a theater of operations
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:45:17 PM EDT
[#20]
CBRN weapons ain't gonna get used for any of this "police action" stuff we do these days.
Against an existential threat? Sure. Against a bunch of stoneage douchebags running around IEDing each other? Not a fucking chance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:46:28 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just wars are an oxymoron. There is only survival and mission accomplishment. Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use. I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
simple answer--discrimination is one of the criteria for the jus in bello component of the just war theory. even nuclear weapons are localized in their primary effects. bio is obviously the opposite of discrimination, and chem is somewhere in the middle. but this is mostly a tag to read the responses of people who are more in the know than i. Just wars are an oxymoron. There is only survival and mission accomplishment. Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use. I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional. It is a delusion you must engage in if you want the public to support you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:47:50 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CBRN weapons ain't gonna get used for any of this "police action" stuff we do these days. Against an existential threat? Sure. Against a bunch of stoneage douchebags running around IEDing each other? Not a fucking chance. That's a shame. Nothing says STFU and quit acting the fool like watching your buddies do the kickin' chicken. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:48:25 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is a delusion you must engage in if you want the public to support you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
simple answer--discrimination is one of the criteria for the jus in bello component of the just war theory. even nuclear weapons are localized in their primary effects. bio is obviously the opposite of discrimination, and chem is somewhere in the middle. but this is mostly a tag to read the responses of people who are more in the know than i. Just wars are an oxymoron. There is only survival and mission accomplishment. Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use. I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional. It is a delusion you must engage in if you want the public to support you. Best argument so far. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:53:15 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those images would make it to the enemy as well though, and to anyone else contemplating making a run at us. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles. Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war. War is disgusting. It'smade less so if it's SHORT. Unfortunately, the only way it would be shortened is when the images of what we were doing made it to the liberal media and our service men are made out to be monsters gassing women and children. Those images would make it to the enemy as well though, and to anyone else contemplating making a run at us. Have the images of the ones we've blown to shreds deterred anyone? We don't have the backbone to fight a war where we actually treat the enemy the way they would treat us. If we did we still wouldn't need chemical weapons. The damage that could be done with conventional weapons used without restraint would be just as intimidating. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:55:34 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a shame. Nothing says STFU and quit acting the fool like watching your buddies do the kickin' chicken. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
CBRN weapons ain't gonna get used for any of this "police action" stuff we do these days. Against an existential threat? Sure. Against a bunch of stoneage douchebags running around IEDing each other? Not a fucking chance. That's a shame. Nothing says STFU and quit acting the fool like watching your buddies do the kickin' chicken. Given that the whole shitshow in Iraq was ostensibly started over the manufacture of WMDs, I think that'd be a tough sell. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:58:01 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
on an abstract level, chem/bio is probably the most efficient way to kill personnel, but efficient killing of personnel does not always mate with political strategy. Like most theory, the devil is in the detail. So, while in the abstract, perhaps you're right. The reality is much more fuzzy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:58:12 PM EDT
[#27]
It is more important to "win the hearts and minds" of our enemies than to look out for America's interest first. This is a must if we are to be a "Great Society".
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 1:59:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Those weapons destroyed in the ChemDemil program were 50 and 60 years old. Some leaking. It was tough enough moving then to propose built incinerators, can't imaging moving them to a theater of operations This..... those were more trouble than they were worth, considering the condition they were in......... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:00:44 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To this day we are still destroying them. Our stockpiles were huge. And outrageous expensive to safeguard, let alone maintain in a usable format. Money that could be spent on usable weapons. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:06:03 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles. Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war. The problem with that theory is that the military publishes training manuals and has training courses for EVERYTHING. A new bomb body just can't appear on a base and get loaded on planes (or shells for artillery, or tanks for helicopter spray) without everyone involved going through weeks of training, reading a new 500 page manual, etc, not to mention the months of testing it would have to go through. EOD and CBRN would need to be spun up on it for handling, safeing, disposal, etc. It would also be wargamed to death by leadership so that every platoon leader would know how to use it, when to call for it, etc. True, the testing could be done covertly at a number of locations, but you can't train tens of thousands of Soldiers and Airmen without at least one of them spilling the beans. Our chemical and biological stockpiles are gone, except for extremely limited (and treaty-verified) amounts produced for antidote, vaccine, detection, etc, R&D. Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:06:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We haven't yet destroyed our chemical stockpiles. Chemical and biological weapons are a fucking disgusting way to fight a war. Yet they can be effective and bio war has been around since the beginning of time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:07:44 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think they're all gone? Cute. Ya. Dis. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:08:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And outrageous expensive to safeguard, let alone maintain in a usable format. Money that could be spent on usable weapons. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
To this day we are still destroying them. Our stockpiles were huge. And outrageous expensive to safeguard, let alone maintain in a usable format. Money that could be spent on usable weapons. This. If chemical weapons were all that great, we would never have signed on to the treaty banning them. The truth is that they are a colossal pain in the ass, and make managing the peace that comes after the war hellishly expensive. You think Vietnam vets being exposed to agent orange was bad? Try exposing shitloads of US servicemen to chemical weapons (even in tiny doses far below lethal exposure.) What could possibly go wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:09:57 PM EDT
[#34]
For a country with an advanced chemical industry, they are damn simple to make in huge quantities.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:10:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. If chemical weapons were all that great, we would never have signed on to the treaty banning them. The truth is that they are a colossal pain in the ass, and make managing the peace that comes after the war hellishly expensive. You think Vietnam vets being exposed to agent orange was bad? Try exposing shitloads of US servicemen to chemical weapons (even in tiny doses far below lethal exposure.) What could possibly go wrong? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To this day we are still destroying them. Our stockpiles were huge. And outrageous expensive to safeguard, let alone maintain in a usable format. Money that could be spent on usable weapons. This. If chemical weapons were all that great, we would never have signed on to the treaty banning them. The truth is that they are a colossal pain in the ass, and make managing the peace that comes after the war hellishly expensive. You think Vietnam vets being exposed to agent orange was bad? Try exposing shitloads of US servicemen to chemical weapons (even in tiny doses far below lethal exposure.) What could possibly go wrong? Honestly, I can't think of a single war since 1945 where Chem would have been truly usable, or when used, was a game-changer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:11:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Yes I have pictures of the train when we dumped them in the ocean
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:12:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just wars are an oxymoron. There is only survival and mission accomplishment. Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use. I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: simple answer--discrimination is one of the criteria for the jus in bello component of the just war theory. even nuclear weapons are localized in their primary effects. bio is obviously the opposite of discrimination, and chem is somewhere in the middle. but this is mostly a tag to read the responses of people who are more in the know than i. Just wars are an oxymoron. There is only survival and mission accomplishment. Enemy casualties, no matter how many, are icing on the cake because they sow fear and remove resources the enemy could use. I think the whole idea of trying to justify a war is sort of self delusional.  so you're saying that from a moral point of view, germany's invasion of poland is equal to the american war for independence? you're saying that there's no such thing as a moral justification for a nation to defend itself militarily?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:13:01 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Like most theory, the devil is in the detail. So, while in the abstract, perhaps you're right. The reality is much more fuzzy. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: on an abstract level, chem/bio is probably the most efficient way to kill personnel, but efficient killing of personnel does not always mate with political strategy. Like most theory, the devil is in the detail. So, while in the abstract, perhaps you're right. The reality is much more fuzzy. completely agree.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:13:36 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Honestly, I can't think of a single war since 1945 where Chem would have been truly usable, or when used, was a game-changer. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
To this day we are still destroying them. Our stockpiles were huge. And outrageous expensive to safeguard, let alone maintain in a usable format. Money that could be spent on usable weapons. This. If chemical weapons were all that great, we would never have signed on to the treaty banning them. The truth is that they are a colossal pain in the ass, and make managing the peace that comes after the war hellishly expensive. You think Vietnam vets being exposed to agent orange was bad? Try exposing shitloads of US servicemen to chemical weapons (even in tiny doses far below lethal exposure.) What could possibly go wrong? Honestly, I can't think of a single war since 1945 where Chem would have been truly usable, or when used, was a game-changer. Everything since 1945 has been police action BS where we had vague goals, weak leadership, and an impossible political situation. Everyone was all gaga about Gulf War I and how well it went but fail to realize it went well because the U.S. military was let off the chain for the first time since '45, we had decent leadership, a workable political situation in the region, and most importantly clearly stated attainable goals. Of course we stopped at 5 yard line and went home; so I don't think you can claim it as a complete success either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:13:51 PM EDT
[#40]
I've gone through the Army's live nerve agent training at Ft. McClellan. VX, Tabun, and Sarin. Fun times I tell you. I even got a coffee cup, I paid for lol.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:17:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everything since 1945 has been police action BS where we had vague goals, weak leadership, and an impossible political situation too. I'm talking ANY war, not just US wars. We have all the things you mention because of nuclear weapons. Now, I can think of one usage of chem that WAS a game changer, but it wasn't in wartime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:17:47 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Call me German, but several current situations would seem to beg for a VX based solution. Given that our enemies have them and will use them if we ever tangle for real, why do we want to deprive ourselves of the same option? This thread inspired by the what if the oil fields fall thread. I think we got rid of some old junk. Know what we will never get rid of? The formula to make this stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:19:09 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've gone through the Army's live nerve agent training at Ft. McClellan. VX, Tabun, and Sarin. Fun times I tell you. I even got a coffee cup, I paid for lol. http://i.imgur.com/zHHVUjn.jpg The quotes around "live" make it  .
Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:20:14 PM EDT
[#44]
The US chemical munitions stockpiles are gone from all but two locations, Pueblo, CO and Lexington-Bluegrass, KY. In those two locations environmental activists forced the military into pursuing non-incineration technologies that have not yet come online, despite decades of development. In all that program is stupid. We can burn Syria's stockpiles safely, but not our own.
As to why we got rid of it, there are several aspects to that answer. First, some of the weapons systems were actually a greater danger to our troops that the enemy. I speak of the M55 Sarin and VX rockets, which went whatever direction they wanted, not necessarily in the direction the rocket was launched. Second, most of the weapons systems were old, and many warheads and 1-ton containers were leaking. Not a good idea for the guys storing, moving, or trying to use the stuff in combat. Third, we didn't want people using chemical weapons against us, so we had a "no first use policy." That "no first use" eventually morphed into a "we'll nuke you in response if you do" policy. Finally, there is the Chemical Weapons Convention, which the US signed up to in the 1990s. All in all, our policy on chemical weapons makes better sense today. We don't have any because they were unreliable, so if some dumbass like NORKOR decides to use them against our forces in a first strike, we (at least on paper) will retaliate using our one type of WMD that is reliable, nukes, for example our dial-a-yield W88 warheads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:47:06 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can use chem without the headaches of using nukes. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better. Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons. You can use chem without the headaches of using nukes. Until the wind switches direction and kills all your own troops. Or you have an accident in storage/transport and kill your own troops. Overall, they are just a shitty weapon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:48:11 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You think they're all gone? Cute. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:51:19 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
errr...no. material destruction is inevitable with nuclear, and there are times when that is undesired. on an abstract level, chem/bio is probably the most efficient way to kill personnel, but efficient killing of personnel does not always mate with political strategy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better. Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons. errr...no. material destruction is inevitable with nuclear, and there are times when that is undesired. on an abstract level, chem/bio is probably the most efficient way to kill personnel, but efficient killing of personnel does not always mate with political strategy. Hard to store, and hard to use. Shitty weapons systems overall. Neutron atomics can do the same thing, but we decided those were "bad". |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:53:40 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You can use chem without the headaches of using nukes. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If something warrants the use of chem/bio, nukes always work better. Therefore no use for chem /bio weapons. You can use chem without the headaches of using nukes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:55:43 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hard to store, and hard to use. Shitty weapons systems overall. Neutron atomics can do the same thing, but we decided those were "bad". Enhanced Radiation weapons are an idea I can get behind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/15/2014 2:58:21 PM EDT
[#50]
 |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
