• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How fast could the U.S. develop chemical weapons?

Dayton3

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
12,687
Reaction score
1,938
Location
Smackover, AR.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
We used to have plenty of them of course but we destroyed all of them to abide by treaties.

But.

I'm troubled by the U.S. not having at least some chemical weapons allowing us to "retaliate in kind" against a chemical weapons attack. For example if the North Koreans invaded South Korea and used their chemical weapons against South Korean and American military targets, the only way the U.S. could retaliate would be to use nuclear weapons. I think everyone would agree that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea even against a nation that has used chemical weapons.

So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?
 
I thought we had a huge stockpile of it.

Did we get rid of it?
 
We used to have plenty of them of course but we destroyed all of them to abide by treaties.

But.

I'm troubled by the U.S. not having at least some chemical weapons allowing us to "retaliate in kind" against a chemical weapons attack. For example if the North Koreans invaded South Korea and used their chemical weapons against South Korean and American military targets, the only way the U.S. could retaliate would be to use nuclear weapons. I think everyone would agree that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea even against a nation that has used chemical weapons.

So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?

The us govt has no need for chemical weapons unless we planned on ww1 style trench warfare. Chemical weapons are less lethal than conventional weapons, unless you have entire platoons battallions etc lined up waiting for it. The main thing of chemical weapons is fear, they produce lower death counts but create fear and demoralize an opponent. For the us military to need such weapons would mean it was an underpowered military that needed fear to compensate for military power.

Biological is a different story, both America and the Soviet Union developed biological weapons, both have since halted such programs outside research and prevention. Biological is bad enough where the two superpowers of the day realized no matter how you spread it it will come back to you being a double edged sword. Biological weapons are so bad that sending them to one country like france could end up wiping out half or more of the earths population due to spread, and the spreader has zero gain when they end up dying from their own virus as well.
 
Dayton3:

The US could have large stockpiles of chemical weapons in a matter of weeks and large stockpiles of biological weapons or biological agents within 3-4 months. It keeps a small stockpile of chemical weapons at facilities like Fort Detrick Md for research and countermeasure/anitidote research.

The US shut down most of its research in chemical and biological weapons between 1969 and 1970 but has persisted in its research at varying smaller scales since then. For example Fort Detrick was ordered to shut down its bio-weapon research labs in 2019 for not following proper safety protocols but was allowed to restart some research earlier this year.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Dayton3:

The US could have large stockpiles of chemical weapons in a matter of weeks and large stockpiles of biological weapons or biological agents within 3-4 months. It keeps a small stockpile of chemical weapons at facilities like Fort Detrick Md for research and countermeasure/anitidote research.

The US shut down most of its research in chemical and biological weapons between 1969 and 1970 but has persisted in its research at varying smaller scales since then. For example Fort Detrick was ordered to shut down its bio-weapon research labs in 2019 for not following proper safety protocols but was allowed to restart some research earlier this year.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
Holy hell do you have a PhD in this stuff? Some kind of bizarre hobbyist expertise? I'm impressed ... and frightened ... and impressed.
 
I'm not trying to change the subject, but the weapons I fear the most right now are the ones that are supposed to send some kind of signal that will make all electronic equipment go haywire.

Just think what it would be like to suddenly not be able to use the computer, the phone, the TV, the car, the radio, the microwave, the refrigerator, etc. How could our military even communicate with each other?

That's what scares me.
 
We used to have plenty of them of course but we destroyed all of them to abide by treaties.

But.

I'm troubled by the U.S. not having at least some chemical weapons allowing us to "retaliate in kind" against a chemical weapons attack. For example if the North Koreans invaded South Korea and used their chemical weapons against South Korean and American military targets, the only way the U.S. could retaliate would be to use nuclear weapons. I think everyone would agree that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea even against a nation that has used chemical weapons.

So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?

If NK were to launch a large-scale chemical attack against the South they get what we decide to counter with and if that's nuclear weapons that's what they'll get.
 
Holy hell do you have a PhD in this stuff? Some kind of bizarre hobbyist expertise? I'm impressed ... and frightened ... and impressed.

Skeptic IIc:

No worries, I'm perhaps well informed because of an abiding interest in all matters military but I am not dangerous.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.
 
Jesus.
 
I think everyone would agree that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea even against a nation that has used chemical weapons.

Why? Nuclear weapons are far more effective than chemical weapons.

So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?

Very easily, since chemical weapons are not hard to make. But it would be pointless.
 
This is the lightning round, right? I pushed the lightning button.

We don't need chemical weapons, but if you're interested, Count Chocula and like cereals are chemical weapons developed by NK. We all know the unholy outcome of giving children sugary chocolate early in the morning. You'll have to face that all day long. Good luck.
 
The primary purpose of chemical weapons is a demoralizing effect. The fear factor can turn a population against its own government in an effort to save itself. These days we don't need them as much because we have social media that can do the same thing without the huge immediate human cost.
 
I'm not trying to change the subject, but the weapons I fear the most right now are the ones that are supposed to send some kind of signal that will make all electronic equipment go haywire.

Just think what it would be like to suddenly not be able to use the computer, the phone, the TV, the car, the radio, the microwave, the refrigerator, etc. How could our military even communicate with each other?

That's what scares me.
You'd be amazed at how quickly you'd get used to a life without most of that stuff. Not having cold beer would suck but it wouldn't be the end of the world.
 
Too effective. I think nuclear weapons would be considered a dramatic and dangerous escalation.

And chemical weapons would be better? Poison gas is a poor man's WMD. It's combat utility is severely limited.
 
And chemical weapons would be better? Poison gas is a poor man's WMD. It's combat utility is severely limited.

It's great for area denial and limiting the targets combat operations. Especially in hot weather when protective gear imposes severe limitations on movement and work.
 
It's great for area denial and limiting the targets combat operations. Especially in hot weather when protective gear imposes severe limitations on movement and work.
The US still has chemical weapons
 
Prove it. And don't mention tear gas. I'm referring to lethal chemical weapons. In particular nerve gas and blood poisoning agents.
The use of chemical weapons was renounced in 1991 and the U.S. signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993. 89.75% of the treaty declared stockpile was destroyed by January 2012.

The United States has destroyed about 90% of the chemical weapons stockpile it declared in 1997, guided by RCRA regulations.[70] As of 2012 complete destruction was not expected until 2023.[71]

 
The use of chemical weapons was renounced in 1991 and the U.S. signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993. 89.75% of the treaty declared stockpile was destroyed by January 2012.

The United States has destroyed about 90% of the chemical weapons stockpile it declared in 1997, guided by RCRA regulations.[70] As of 2012 complete destruction was not expected until 2023.[71]


Fair enough. I wonder which ones are left?
 
You'd be amazed at how quickly you'd get used to a life without most of that stuff. Not having cold beer would suck but it wouldn't be the end of the world.

It's the lack of communication among our military that would really worry me, Luther. And in the meantime, the rest of us could communicate only face-to-face. It would be like caveman times. We'd have to go back to smoke signals.
 
It's great for area denial and limiting the targets combat operations. Especially in hot weather when protective gear imposes severe limitations on movement and work.
Hot weather is a limitation but not an impossibility on protective gear, in oif one basically the first year of the second gulf war soldiers were sent in wearing mopp suites and pro masks under the assumption saddam would use chemical weapons in desperation. Mind you the iraqi and kuwaiti deserts are near unbearable heatwise as it is, but the us military pulled it off, really any military could have pulled off using ppe for chemical environments, yeah it is hot but there is a reason military gas masks have canteen straws.
 
Back
Top Bottom