They're banned because they cause unnecessary suffering. Like some types of bullet. I don't think they should be legalized, since the suffering argument is perfectly legit.
What about landmines? They persist. They're designed for it. As well as unexploded stuff generally. What about depleted uranium? It's toxic, and sticks around.
Depleted Uranium is not toxic, unless you try and hurt yourself with it. Our troops have been handling the rounds and walking through the ranges it is fired at for years without one case of poisoning. Our troops have also been driving around in large boxes of depleted uranium for years with no problem.
Patroklos said "it was death on a scale no artillery shell could muster".
I don't see how you can claim that gas was developed because artillery left survivors; if anything, gas left behind more and also didn't damage enemy fortifications. I don't think that it was 'developed' for any reason other than it seemed like a good idea.
It certainly did not have much effect on the outcome of the First World War.
I don't see how you can claim that gas was developed because artillery left survivors; if anything, gas left behind more and also didn't damage enemy fortifications. I don't think that it was 'developed' for any reason other than it seemed like a good idea.
It certainly did not have much effect on the outcome of the First World War.
I launch a 155mm CHEM round which has a kill radius of 15 yards from explosives alone. Then the gas kills everything within 20 yards entrenched, and then depending on the gas kills everyone in 20 yards fortified. Remember that most field entrenchments, and even most prepared fortifications have ZERO air filtering. Even if they have gas masks, blistering agents will get you, as almost nobody actually whereas the CHEM warfare outfits (we don't even have enough). This is actually better because now your enemy has do deal with wounded. And then the chemicals stay active for several hours to days, maiming enemies or at least denying them the battle space. Plus the hysteria.
Round for round, barrage for barrage (conventional artillery should not be considered by round either as IT was not designed that way) CHEM rounds win. I bombard the Seelow Heights with 10,000 arty tubes of HE, or I do it with HE with chemicals. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.
As for the Great War, I would suspect that since chemical weapons made maybe .001 percent of the munitions used in the war, you need to be a little more relative with your comparisons to artillery and machine guns.
And the final breakthroughs had nothing to do with "short artillery barrages that suddenly stopped." They did that every day of the war, which was punctuated by the huge inferno barrages. The Germans starved to death from the blockade. Great War 101!
I happen to believe that the frequency of weapons systems used might have had something to do with their usefulness, especially as the war dragged on (and the primitive tactics used initially gave way to more advanced ones). Gas wasn't very effective; that's the simplest explanation.
The real reason is the weapons appalled both sides because of their effectiveness, and what they did to achieve it. Or in other words because it was so UNCOVENTIONAL!!!
Anyway, suppose I wanted to group together nukes with conventional weapons. I could just as quickly cobble together a short list of similarities: Creates heat, destroys buildings, delivered in the same basic manner as conventional weapons.
Patroklos said that in order to use chemical weapons effectively, you'd need to use thousands of gallons of it. That entails quite a few planes, does it not?
Comment