Why are chemical weapons worse than conventional weapons?

[rathi]

Mustard gas is primary reason that chemical weapons are banned. Even compared to getting limbs blown off, its a really horrible way to go. The symptoms take hours after exposure, so soldiers who think they are safe suddenly start seeing their skin blister like a second degree burn. The mortality rate isn't particularly high, but victims suffer in agony for weeks, live or die.

Nerve gas isn't especially painful, but it causes permanent neurological damage. Chlorine based weapons damage mucus membranes and cause suffocation.

The overall effectiveness of gas weapons is actually quite low. They are hard to control, often cause friendly casualties, are heavily to environmental conditions and are highly ineffective against prepared soldiers. The total number of casualties in WW1 from gas was quite low. The bottom line is that such weapons have dubious military value and really are more suited to terrorizing people than actually causing damage.

 

[Starbuck]

The bombs were an alternative to invasion. Had we done neither we would not have won the war.eace

How many planes flew along with the Enola Gay during those missions?

 

[Jack Hays]

How many planes flew along with the Enola Gay during those missions?

No idea.

 

[Starbuck]

Nerve gas isn't especially painful, but it causes permanent neurological damage. Chlorine based weapons damage mucus membranes and cause suffocation.

From what I've read/ studied, nerve agents are actually quite painful. . . quick, but painful. They also, generally result in death, which I guess could be considered permanent neurological damage.

The bottom line is that such weapons have dubious military value and really are more suited to terrorizing people than actually causing damage.

I'm quite sure that nearly all deployed CBR weapons have generally resulted in more civilian casualties than military casualties, which further illustrates your point.

 

[Starbuck]

No idea.

Three, none of which received any damage from anti-aircraft weapons.

I'd say that any country incapable of defending itself from three long-range bombers flying on a pre-announced mission and without fighter-plane cover, has already been defeated.

 

[polgara]

Good evening Lady P - is it unbearably humid where you are the past week or so?

Yes, it has been! *:sigh:* I had to process vegetables from the garden, and it was uncomfortable even with the A/C! Beats winter winds and ice, though...but not by much! :thumbs:

 

[Jack Hays]

Three, none of which received any damage from anti-aircraft weapons.

I'd say that any country incapable of defending itself from three long-range bombers flying on a pre-announced mission and without fighter-plane cover, has already been defeated.

Absolutely untrue. Japanese were hoarding their fuel. Read Hell to Pay and get back to me. An invasion would have been crushed.eace

 

[Starbuck]

Absolutely untrue. Japanese were hoarding their fuel. Read Hell to Pay and get back to me. An invasion would have been crushed.eace

What's untrue about my statement. . .

Did the Enola Gay fly with fighter cover?

Did we not announce that we were going to drop the bombs prior to the actual event?

Again, my point is that neither the bombs nor the invasion were actually necessary. By that point in the war we had already won on the Pacific front. The bombs were simply adding insult to injury. . . at a very high and immoral price.

 

[Starbuck]

Obviously though, an invasion of mainland Japan would've been a massive failure. . . but it was never something that we actually needed to do.

 

[Jack Hays]

What's untrue about my statement. . .

Did the Enola Gay fly with fighter cover?

Did we not announce that we were going to drop the bombs prior to the actual event?

Again, my point is that neither the bombs nor the invasion were actually necessary. By that point in the war we had already won on the Pacific front. The bombs were simply adding insult to injury. . . at a very high and immoral price.

Japan remained defiant and would not have ceased hostile operations. Invasion was an impossibility. The bombs were the only path to victory.eace

 

[Hypersonic]

Why are chemical weapons worse than conventional weapons?

I know, I know, on the surface it seems like a ridiculous question. I heard it asked on a radio talk show a few days ago. It was asked in an interesting way.

If you had to articulate and answer, how would you explain why chemical weapons are worse than conventional weapons.

FWIW: The answer given was something along the lines of, "Well, because everybody agrees they are." I don't believe that even begins to address the question.

My educated guess would be chemical weapons can cause massive and continuous devastation. As oppsed to conventional which may effect a certain number of casualties. As with the recent Syrian incident. Not only do chemical weapons effect those targets, but if responders aren't properly dressed, they too become among the casualties.

 

[Muhammed]

Why are chemical weapons worse than conventional weapons?

A shot glass of GB agent can cause more casualties than a truck load of AK rounds.

 

[KevinKohler]

What's untrue about my statement. . .

Did the Enola Gay fly with fighter cover?

Did we not announce that we were going to drop the bombs prior to the actual event?

Again, my point is that neither the bombs nor the invasion were actually necessary. By that point in the war we had already won on the Pacific front. The bombs were simply adding insult to injury. . . at a very high and immoral price.

You are incorrect. Japan is a warrior culture. Many/most of them would rather die than surrender. Surrendering is a shameful act.

War is more than simple logistics.

 

[Jack Hays]

A shot glass of GB agent can cause more casualties than a truck load of AK rounds.

That is an efficiency argument, not a moral one.

 

[Starbuck]

Japan remained defiant and would not have ceased hostile operations. Invasion was an impossibility. The bombs were the only path to victory.eace

Sure they remained defiant, we would've too. However, there wasn't anything for them to do with all of that defiance.

By the very path of that mission, prior to actually dropping the bomb, we proved that they were altogether incapable of doing much harm to either us or our interests by that point in the war.

The Black Knight was still defiant when King Arthur (Graham Chapman), continued over the bridge. . . should Arthur not have poured boiling water over the guys head at that point?

 

[KevinKohler]

If the Syrian government had used bullets to kill those citizens, would we be talking about attacking them, in whatever limited fashion?


And does anyone think the US doesn't have chemical weapons waiting to be used?

War is hell. It has but one goal. Cause your enemy to no longer fight back. Attempting to apply rules to it is like asking a lion to use silverware to eat the gazel it's just killed.

 

[Jack Hays]

Sure they remained defiant, we would've too. However, there wasn't anything for them to do with all of that defiance.

By the very path of that mission, prior to actually dropping the bomb, we proved that they were altogether incapable of doing much harm to either us or our interests by that point in the war.

The Black Knight was still defiant when King Arthur (Graham Chapman), continued over the bridge. . . should Arthur not have poured boiling water over the guys head at that point?

Japan still occupied huge territories in China and commanded formidable submarine forces. Left unsubdued, Japan would have recovered strength and continued to kill Americans.eace

 

[Starbuck]

You are incorrect. Japan is a warrior culture. Many/most of them would rather die than surrender. Surrendering is a shameful act.

That was never my point.

So what if they never surrendered? What were they going to do about it. . . stay angry. Face it, by that point in the war we had achieved such a level of control over the Pacific Theater that we were able to launch four aircraft from various places in close proximity to Japan and without any interference drop two atomic bombs on major cities.

Remember, those bombers were pre announced and flew without fighter cover. . . what type of defiant nation allows that to happen?

War is more than simple logistics.

In-N-Out is simple logistics, there is nothing simple about war.

 

[WCH]

I think a lot of why chemical/ biological weapons are considered worse comes from how they affect the human body.

A conventional weapon generally relies upon immediate and blunt trauma. CBR weapons often leave the victims with long standing after effects, many of which constitute long-term pain and suffering.

That's true. When I take a deer I'm looking to break the spine so the suffering is at a minimum

Chemicals Bad!

 

[Starbuck]

Japan still occupied huge territories in China and commanded formidable submarine forces. Left unsubdued, Japan would have recovered strength and continued to kill Americans.eace

At the start of the war Japan had a significant military advantage, however by the time August 1945 rolled around they were no longer commanding anything even resembling formidable.

Again, neither the invasion nor the bombs were actually necessary we had already won the war.

 

[Jack Hays]

At the start of the war Japan had a significant military advantage, however by the time August 1945 rolled around they were no longer commanding anything even resembling formidable.

Again, neither the invasion nor the bombs were actually necessary we had already won the war.

Again, an assertion based on ignorance. Read Hell to Pay, which really ends the debate. Subtitle is Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947. There's a reason for that.eace

 

[Starbuck]

If the Syrian government had used bullets to kill those citizens, would we be talking about attacking them, in whatever limited fashion?

For those of us who pay attention to the news, we have been talking about the Syrian government using bullets to kill thousands of citizens. . . for the past few years.

And does anyone think the US doesn't have chemical weapons waiting to be used?

The US has more chemical weapons waiting to be used than any other government/ non-government entity in the world.

War is hell. It has but one goal. Cause your enemy to no longer fight back. Attempting to apply rules to it is like asking a lion to use silverware to eat the gazel it's just killed.

War is hell, but I'd say that it is a little bit more complex than simply stopping the enemy. Usually the human ego gets involved and changes everything.

 

[Starbuck]

Again, an assertion based on ignorance. Read Hell to Pay, which really ends the debate. Subtitle is Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan, 1945-1947. There's a reason for that.eace

First of all, Hell to Pay is a 400 page book, I have neither the ambition nor the time to read that book in reference to this particular thread.

Second of all, Hell to Pay is but one book written on the topic. We aren't talking about some shadow operations here, we are talking about well known historical events. I've studied and read enough to well understand that Japan was in no position to do much of anything aside from be defiant, by the time we dropped the bombs.

Their forces on mainland Asia had been all but defeated, their naval fleet was non-exisistant, their oil supply was gone, they didn't have an air force. . . and they certainly couldn't defend against three unescorted bombers flying over their mainland.

If they were still an actual threat we would've never been able to drop the bombs.

 

[Starbuck]

Again, the Black Knight from Monty Python comes to mind here.

 

[Jack Hays]

First of all, Hell to Pay is a 400 page book, I have neither the ambition nor the time to read that book in reference to this particular thread.

Second of all, Hell to Pay is but one book written on the topic. We aren't talking about some shadow operations here, we are talking about well known historical events. I've studied and read enough to well understand that Japan was in no position to do much of anything aside from be defiant, by the time we dropped the bombs.

Their forces on mainland Asia had been all but defeated, their naval fleet was non-exisistant, their oil supply was gone, they didn't have an air force. . . and they certainly couldn't defend against three unescorted bombers flying over their mainland.

If they were still an actual threat we would've never been able to drop the bombs.

That is the point. You don't know what you don't know.