Chemical Weapons, a valid form of Warfare?

Winston Churchill (Of whom I hold in high-regard, Historically speaking) can be quoted as saying
"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favor of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas."
These sentiments were made manifest in 1919, when the British had employed the use of a newly developed Chemical Gas, and had bombed the Bolsheviks. Now (A point specific to this forum in particular) with the other two forms of WMD, I hold them as incredibly devastating, and completely unnecessary in combat, why?

In the case of Biological Weapons, the prime target is civilians, which, in modern times, really isn't who you should be targeting in order to "win" a war, it is also prone to spreading to non-target populations. As to why the use of Nuclear weapons cannot be supported as a means of warfare is fairly obvious, Mutually Assured Nuclear Destruction being one of them, the other, the uninhabitable land that is resultant. But Chemical warfare is something quite different, it can be contained with a battlefield and can be precisely targeted, it can kill with extreme efficiency, and yet provide something that conventional weapons cannot - terror.

Surely the case can be made that "Conventional" weapons are effective and result in a short and instant death (well, most of the time) but, in times of warfare, I think it key to use all weapons that are afforded to us and be contained to an enemy target, if they are more effective (and that word is key) than the others we previously had at our disposal. Of course, the images in WWI of soldiers coughing up and vomiting their own lungs, among other ailments inflicted, isn't exactly a pretty sight to behold, but what it holds is fear in an enemies heart, and actual terror that could change the mentality of combatants, and diffuse their resolve.

Perhaps I'm a sadist, incapable of empathy for my fellow man, perhaps not? But it is something to ponder, perhaps an effective method, given the unshakable resolve of those we fight at present. It's just a thought.

 

And chemical weapons aren't?

The distribution of gas cloud casualties was not only limited to the front. Nearby towns were at risk from winds blowing the poison gases through. Civilians rarely had a warning system put into place to alert their neighbors of the danger. In addition to poor warning systems, civilians often did not have access to effective gas masks. An estimated 100,000-260,000 civilian casualties were caused by chemical weapons during the conflict and tens of thousands of more (along with military personnel) died from scarring of the lungs, skin damage, and cerebral damage in the years after the conflict ended. Many commanders on both sides knew that such weapon would cause major harm to civilians as wind would blow poison gases into nearby civilian towns but nonetheless continued to use them throughout the war. British Field Marshal Sir Douglas Haig wrote in his diary: "My officers and I were aware that such weapon would cause harm to women and children living in nearby towns, as strong winds were common on the battlefront. However, because the weapon was to be directed against the enemy, none of us were overly concerned at all."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_weapons_in_World_War_I#Civilian_casualties

And this is where you completely miss the point. MAD isn't a means of warfare; it's about preventing wars (nuclear ones at least), not fighting them.

 

Quite beside the point, you surely know that post-WWI Chemical weapons were researched and manufactured, primarily in the cold-war era by the Soviets, and also by the Americans until the Mid - 50's (Such as Sarin). Highly modernized, they could indeed be contained quite well to a battlefield, a list of them is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_warfare_agents . WWI chemical agents weren't only hazardous to civilians and the enemy, but even by the side that employed them, reports that if the wind blew unfavorably that the poisonous gasses would return- obviously I am not in favor of such archaic technology. I also don't see where I missed the point on the subject of MAD, the implication in my statement was exactly as you described the subject to be - we are on the same page regarding that.

 

How? Any chemical agent will volatilize given the right environmental conditions (which you can't control) and once it does it goes where ever the wind (which you also can't control) takes it.

 

Yes, but it can be restricted and isolated to a specific location, that's the point, it isn't Chernobyl, it isn't going to drift over several countries, I can see your point, the vapor is the main concern, but the technology was present in the 50's to contain the spread, especially if you were to employ nerve agents intended for skin-contact in order to be highly effective.
I can see the primary issue here is that you see the use of chemical weapons as inhumane and barbaric, whereas in a modern war scenario, where extreme ideals are present within the perforated and mangled minds of the enemy, I consider it acceptable. I think of myself as quite considerate regarding societal issues in the west, and indeed the east, I consider all culture of the present and past relevant and something worth retention of, but in times of war, with a determined and relentless enemy, perhaps it's necessary?

 

I've heard of this chemical weapon developed some time ago. You manufacture this powder that burns very rapidly if exposed to heat. Then you fill big metal canisters with this chemical and add a fuse. You drop the canisters on the enemy and the burning chemical causes the canisters to shatter, sending out masses of red-hot shards of metal which literally rip the targets apart, causing indiscriminate death and debilitation.

Chemical weapons are indeed horrific.

 

I repeat; how? How do you control the wind?

 

What your thinking of are phosphorous bombs, of which a video of is here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhkbaMgrro4 (skip to 0:57, and also ignore the Russian propaganda, the footage was indeed filmed in Iraq, or so I believe). Israel was still employing them I believe up until a few years ago, unsure of whether they been used in the ongoing conflict of present, but they've definitely been employed against Palestinians in the past.

 

Err no, what I was thinking of was gunpowder.

 

Fascist Italy became quite famous because of usage of chemical weapons in Africa.

While the Duce was talking about the construction of a new Roman Empire the European newspapers laughed of the real possibilities of his Army to win against Ethiopians. It's to be said that European journalists weren't that wrong, Italian Fascist Army wasn't exactly a great colonial armed force ...

But Mussolini allowed a mass usage of chemical weapons and the Italian Army conquered the African horn.

Which is the point related to the usage of these weapons?
I guess that they stay in the class of MDW because of their collateral and lasting damages. Chemical weapons can pollute entire regions and make land no more fertile for years. In this, at the end, they are similar to nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, nature and civilian populations have got substantially no defense against chemical weapons. You can escape a bombardment, but chemical substances in the air could reach you anyway ... if the wind blows in your direction ...

But at the end it's a weapon and despite conventions, there are depots of those MDW and I guess that during a real and tough war someone would use them.

 

Oh, so you're in support of my theory? Or no? I guess you could consider almost any weapon in the modern age to be chemical, yes.

 

an excellent weapon for an era of soulless cowards.

 

Chemical and biological weapons should never be used, period.

They are unreliable. They are also not very effective against troops trained and equipped to work in that kid of environment. That are also often highly deadly to your own forces. The only viable target to use them on is civilians, and that is not acceptable.

To give an idea how effective they are against a trained and equipped enemy, look at the Gulf War. While the government will not admit it, there is no doubt that Iraq did use chemical weapons against Coalition troops. Chemical detectors went off over 18,000 times in the days before and during the war. This is the most likely cause of "Gulf War Syndrome", and also explains why this disease has not reappeared in the much longer war of the last decade.

But Coalition troops had among the best protective gear in the world, and are well trained in it's use. So there were no direct casualties, but the effects of even minimal exposure are still being felt by those who were exposed even decades later.

 

Well, chemical weapons are a bit too cheap. We want to hold our strategic and tactical military superiority by strongly discouraging the use of such weapons, as poor countries could use them, too. And when it comes to civilian casualties, that really isn't a concern in modern warfare. The "civilians" are usually supporting the enemy war effort or at least sympathizing with it.