Active Now

Element 99
Slartibartfast
Discussion » Questions » Military » Why are chemical weapons worse than other non-nuclear weapons?

Why are chemical weapons worse than other non-nuclear weapons?

@MillenialTwitterAccount

Posted - April 7, 2017

Responses


  • Maybe this will help you to understand better.
    Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (NBC) are considered weapons of mass destruction because they're:
    • Effective over a large area.
    • Indiscriminate
    • Extremely lethal for the size of the weapon (usually)
    • Persistent. The effects can linger in an area for a long time.

    From what I've read so far? It was Sarin gas that was used. Very deadly and lethal.

    Nerve gas shells spray out chemical weapons in roughly half the weight of a HE shell of the same caliber (i.e. a 155mm chemical shell puts out 10-12 lbs of chemicals). They spray as they come down, and a tiny droplet of say... VX gas is can be lethal, stay around for a while, drift on the wind and kill someone outside the target area, etc...

    This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 8, 2017 6:40 AM MDT
      April 7, 2017 6:21 AM MDT
    7

  • 2960
    Me understand better.
      April 7, 2017 7:58 AM MDT
    2

  • Me glad!
      April 7, 2017 8:00 AM MDT
    0

  • Dear Mr. Bromide,
    The bizarre ethical considerations that can go along with your Q of which is 'worse'...

    I recently watched a documentary biography of Einstein, telling of another famous scientist who invented the chemical weapons actually considered himself to be compassionate, because his WMD would bring the war to an end sooner and fewer people would die. Einstein was present for the battlefield demonstration and was so horrified he tried to bring a petition among scientists against the war...but only one or two signers, in the war fever.

    And then Truman, famously pondering whether to proceed with Hiroshima/Nagasaki...it is said he looked at the relative death statistics projected, and on the basis of Allied lives saved decided to proceed. 
    I am writing this from memory and Rooster may know more accurately here, but I seem to recall that even General MacArthur, NOT known for dove-ishness, wrote to Truman advising against nuclear weapons. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at April 8, 2017 8:24 AM MDT
      April 7, 2017 8:33 AM MDT
    3

  • That he did!
      April 8, 2017 6:27 AM MDT
    1

  • 739
    While what Rooster says is indisputably correct, Assad kills thousands every day with conventional weapons, with the help of his Russian friends. To the person who has died, or their family and friends, it makes no difference what they have been killed with. They are just as dead.
      April 8, 2017 8:08 AM MDT
    1

  • 22891
    maybe they do more damage
      April 9, 2017 5:35 PM MDT
    0