chemical vs conventional weapons

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-13 09:42am

why are chemical weapons regarded as any worse? its all killing people.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-13 09:53am

The Germans use of chemical weapons in WW1 was extremely effective initially and was considered a *cheap* shot. I mean, how dare you use a weapon that completely obliterated the current stalemate?

I think its a relic of the "noble" era of warfare when gentleman didn't take cheap shots.

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-03-13 10:02am

If you fire a bullet it is dangerous for secounds.
A bomb if it’s not a dud is dangerous for something like 1 sec

An NBC weapons effect lingers for hours, days, years, millennia.

There is the difference.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-13 10:30am

its more effective?

Xenophobe3691 · Post by **Xenophobe3691** » 2003-03-13 10:37am

It's indiscriminate.

Enforcer Talen · Post by **Enforcer Talen** » 2003-03-13 10:38am

so is artillery.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-13 11:47am

Enforcer Talen wrote:so is artillery.

Actually, artillery will strike exactly where you aim it, and will stop when you order it too. A chemical weapon however with drift with the wind and continue to kill for hours, day or even weeks in the case of some agents.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-13 11:48am

How about carpet bombing? That's indiscriminate and has lasting effects.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-03-13 11:50am

Zoink wrote:How about carpet bombing? That's indiscriminate and has lasting effects.

And we rarely use it anymore. We have precision weapons that are more effective.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-13 11:55am

Zoink wrote:How about carpet bombing? That's indiscriminate and has lasting effects.

Unless the bombers use cluster bombs, which has never been done BTW, you can walk through an area thats been hit by heavy bombers two minutes later and be fine.

Some of the horror associated with chemical weapons just goes down to how you die. People would much rather be crushed or sawed in half by fragments or blast then to drown in fluid from blisters in there lungs or to suffocate on vomit while they shit themselves and convulse

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-13 12:00pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Unless the bombers use cluster bombs, which has never been done BTW, you can walk through an area thats been hit by heavy bombers two minutes later and be fine.

I wasn't specific, but the lasting effects I was thinking about are the complete destruction of the their infrastructure/social networks. Things like water, sanitation, food distribution, medical facilities, education facilities, economy, etc.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-13 12:00pm

Chemicals are like anti personnal mines,they are use by SOBs who don`t care about what will happen in the years following the wars.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-13 12:10pm

Zoink wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote:Unless the bombers use cluster bombs, which has never been done BTW, you can walk through an area thats been hit by heavy bombers two minutes later and be fine.
I wasn't specific, but the lasting effects I was thinking about are the complete destruction of the their infrastructure/social networks. Things like water, sanitation, food distribution, medical facilities, education facilities, economy, etc.

Carpet bombing does not specifically refer to flattening cities. In any case, you might notice that people stopped doing that around the same time chemical weapons stopped being considered just another weapon.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-13 12:14pm

Montcalm wrote:Chemicals are like anti personnal mines,they are use by SOBs who don`t care about what will happen in the years following the wars.

Actually, anti personal mines used by a modern western and many other armies are rarely an problem. It's the unmapped indiscriminant usage by third world forces that's a major problem. And of course, the stupid ban has done nothing to change that, if anything its made it worse.

The rabid mindless crusade against AP mines spews more shit then a North Korean propaganda movie.

Sr.mal · Post by **Sr.mal** » 2003-03-13 12:36pm

Alex Moon wrote:
Zoink wrote:How about carpet bombing? That's indiscriminate and has lasting effects.
And we rarely use it anymore. We have precision weapons that are more effective.

Actually during the Gulf War, most of the bombs dropped were dumb bombs dropped by B-52s carpet bombing Iraqi positions. All you heard on T.V. were the guided munitioins used in urban ares.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-13 12:38pm

Sr.mal wrote:
Alex Moon wrote:
Zoink wrote:How about carpet bombing? That's indiscriminate and has lasting effects.
And we rarely use it anymore. We have precision weapons that are more effective.
Actually during the Gulf War, most of the bombs dropped were dumb bombs dropped by B-52s carpet bombing Iraqi positions. All you heard on T.V. were the guided munitioins used in urban ares.

I think moon was specifically referring to urban attacks, as some people seem to think carpet bombing mean flattening cities, rather then just being any case when aircraft drop sticks of dumb bombs while in level flight.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-03-13 12:57pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: Carpet bombing does not specifically refer to flattening cities. In any case, you might notice that people stopped doing that around the same time chemical weapons stopped being considered just another weapon.

Ya, not always in cities, but its something that was concidered OK (city bombing), while chemical weapons were concidered wrong. Carpet bombing of cities was practiced in WW2, while chemical weapons were banned. It sounds like a small detail, but its a detail that killed a lot of people.

I think the practice was stopped for different reasons: morality of targeting civilians, vs the 'horror' and lethality of gas attacks on soldiers.

Sr.mal · Post by **Sr.mal** » 2003-03-13 01:01pm

Hell, in WW2 we fire-bombed many cities in Europe and Japan. Just look at what happened to Dressden

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-03-13 04:12pm

Zoink wrote:
Sea Skimmer wrote: Carpet bombing does not specifically refer to flattening cities. In any case, you might notice that people stopped doing that around the same time chemical weapons stopped being considered just another weapon.
Ya, not always in cities, but its something that was concidered OK (city bombing), while chemical weapons were concidered wrong. Carpet bombing of cities was practiced in WW2, while chemical weapons were banned. It sounds like a small detail, but its a detail that killed a lot of people.

I think the practice was stopped for different reasons: morality of targeting civilians, vs the 'horror' and lethality of gas attacks on soldiers.

Chemical weapons where not used inWW2 because both sides thought the others retaliation would be unbearable. However both the Allies and Germans and Japan amassed vast chemical stocks.

Area bombing of cities was introduced simply because the bombers couldn't effectively hit point targets. After the war bombing accuracy improved, and most wars where so short a nations production capability didn't matter or in cases like Vietnam, was not located within the country