Good to see this posted again. I see a concurring example in aerial bombardment policy of the US and the UK throughout WWII. I even wrote a paper regarding it in college.<p>Both the US and the UK wanted to target the war making capacity of the Germans. The Americans sought to achieve this with strategic precision bombing. The UK sought to do so with mass bombing campaigns targeting industrial workers. The disparity for example manifested in the reluctance of the US to fly bombing missions at night which for obvious reasons was preferred by the British.<p>Near the end of 1944 however, Allied High Command became concerned that the war might stretch into autumn 1945 and they were hoping the Soviet winter campaign could end the war early. So they initiated their own indiscriminant bombing campaign. In his autobiography, James Doolittle wrote that he opposed the bombing campaign of Berlin because it would , “...violate the basic American principle of precision bombing of targets of strictly military significance...”. In the end, the US adopted the UK's bombing regime and would pursue similar and even more liberal approaches later in the Cold War.<p>And it is not as if urban bombing wasn't a subject of moral discussion. In WWI the dropping of a grenade upon Paris by a pilot had made it clear that aerial bombardment would probably become a thing. There was a great deal of discussion through the interwar period. In the end though, it seems practicality will triumph over ideals given enough stress and time.
This makes me think of an observation from (I think) the web-serial Worm. Being a super hero who shoots fire is very tough. Either your opponent is someone who is vulnerable to fire, in which case your power would burn them to death (which is not very heroic) or your opponent is not vulnerable to fire, in which case your powers are useless.<p>Similar thinking seems to apply here. Either your target is a modern, mobile, equipped army of professionals who will take minimal damage from chemical weapons, or they are a vulnerable population of civilians who will be massacred horribly if you use them.
Because they're not really useful. It's very difficult to keep chemical weapons contained so that they only damage your target and not your own soldiers or your allies or a bunch of civilians whose gruesome deaths will not play well in the media.<p>In general, conventional weaponry is more effective at accomplishing military objectives.
0. For chemical and biological weapons, there's in inverse relationship between dispersal characteristics and ease of force protection. For example, oily liquids such as VX disperse well, but personnel can be projected with simple charcoal lined protective clothes and gas mask filters. On the other hand, viruses and microtoxins are difficult to protect against, but they also have poor dispersal characteristics from bombs and projectiles.<p>1. The armed forces of major countries spend a lot of effort to LOOK as if they are prepared to operate under chemical and biological conditions. This includes large stockpiles of protective gear and regular exercises that include chemical weapons scenarios.<p>2. Chemical and biological weapons aren't used militarily because there's little reason to think that they would be effective.
2.
The UK planned on using them if Germany ever tried landing on their shores in WWII. Basically just dumping chlorine and mustard gas off the top of cliffs and watching it sink down hill. Anyone on the beaches would've been trapped between that and the ocean.
> The other large-scale use has been in the Syrian Civil War, by the Assad regime against both military and civilian targets (but mostly civilian targets).<p>False propaganda unfortunately according to the OPCW inspectors who actually went to Syria, including the director of the OPCW. But you can ignore them and take the CIA's word for it instead like the author of this article did.<p><a href="https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/02/a-and-b-respond-to-the-opcws-attacks-on-them-the-full-rebuttal.html" rel="nofollow">https://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2020/02/a-and-b-resp...</a><p>>Quite frankly, we don’t use chemical weapons for the same reason we don’t use war-zeppelin-bombers: they don’t work, at least within our modern tactical systems.<p>Also false, we used white phosphorus extensively in Iraq and elsewhere.
Funny, he never mentioned the chemical weapons that are used all the time, domestically, on protesters. Here's a couple articles I found:<p><a href="https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/tear-gas-is-a-chemical-weapon-why-can-cops-use-it.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.thecut.com/2020/06/tear-gas-is-a-chemical-weapon...</a><p><a href="https://www.newsweek.com/richmond-chemical-weapons-protests-1520531" rel="nofollow">https://www.newsweek.com/richmond-chemical-weapons-protests-...</a><p>My two cents: In general, shouldn't our elected "leaders" arrange to meet with protesters, people who are obviously very frustrated, and spend the time to talk to them, instead of sending in the police to gas them?