I've never understood the reasoning behind banning chemical weapons.
>inb4 they might target civilians!
Yeah, because bombing out cities won't cause any collateral damage either.
>inb4 but the winds might blow the gas back at you!
Wear protective gear. Or better still, just drop from a plane and don't be there.
If anything, chemical attacks are more decent of you because they at least leave existing infrastructure in place.
They're outlawed because of the inhuman suffering it causes. Far beyond being blown up or shot, having your eyes melt out of your head while you're uncontrollably shitting yourself and vomiting is far beyond being shot or blown up.
what he said also, i have news for you, chemical weapons sucks donkey balls, go bio or go home
Not to mention their potential applications as a defensive weapon. We already acknowledge some chemical warfare is okay in that regard -- capsaicin sprays and foggers, tear gas... Why arbitrarily draw the line at nerve agents?
How about worse than years of radiation sickness/cancer/generations of birth defects from nuclear fallout, which we've decided is fair game?
This thread gets posted monthly with the same image
why are you keep making these threads? you damn know the answer yourself
Because checking to death on poison gas is really really not fun. Infact. It's so not fun that after one war's worth of use the majority of nations came together and said "Hey, we probably shouldn't use this stuff anymore. It really sucks to be killed by it, like more so than just being shot".
Do you know how this shit works?
Chemical weapons are utterly terrifying, but also of extremely limited use. In a way, the fear they cause simply by existing is one of their greatest strengths, much like nukes.
Their only one real use is in area denial. The last thing you drop a chemical weapon on is any place you want to move through or occupy due to their lingering nature. It's possible that the majority of a compound will breakdown, but very small amounts (still more than enough to kill) might become trapped in the nooks and crannies as it were, and pose a significant risk to your own forces.
They also increase logistical strain and degrade combat effectiveness, but it's a double edged effect that applies to both you and your enemy.
For targeting mass population centers, biological and nuclear weapons are much better options.
Radiation sickness/cancer/birth defects isn't fun either, and yet, nukes are treated as a legitimate option on the table.
They're easy to protect against and they deny you from advancing into the area you just attacked. They really suck as weapons, they're really only a threat to the civilian populace because they aren't normally issued protective gear.
Because we fucking didn't know about that shit when we dropped the first two bombs, ya dingus. Newsflash: there have been two nukes dropped on humans in the history of the world, and from that is where we get all our knowledge on the subject.
Why shouldn't threatening civilians be a legitimate warfare tactic? Kills morale and can cause the enemy internal problems when civilians are ready to revolt because they would rather the government forfeited the war than continued to be gassed.
It's another episode of "why don't we just kill everyone man these paint chips are really sweet"
>I've never understood
lol we can tell
> more decent ... because [physical objects not destroyed]
ok, first, let me tell why you you're dumb: this isn't true.
Material exposed to cbrn needs decon badly and may never be suitable for use again.
Also, phosgene, as an example, destroys literally everything it touches except maybe glass
Anyway, there's a lot of yucky things we could do:
exploding bullets, hollowpoints, chemical, biological, hypnosis, mutilation of prisoners, brainwashing, etc
There's a magical wonderland of agony and destruction, completely above and beyond the "normal" chaos of bitter war.
Men who actually fight understand the possibility of wars fought with these ugly weapons.
They could get these weapons, if they wanted them.
Yet the people in charge are just fine fighting wars that don't include these dreadful horrors.
and all you edgelords are shitposting like faggots about things you don't control or understand
>nuclear fallout ... is fair game
is it really? or did every government in the world simultaneously decide that wasn't worth it?
because i can't hear any bombs falling
>when civilians are ready to revolt because they would rather the government forfeited the war than continued to be gassed
That's not the way it works, asshat. When people in a defensive war they tend to rally around the fight against a common enemy. If the enemy threatens to use chemical weapons like inhuman monsters, it would make their resolve all the stronger.
Sage because homosex
Nukes and chem/bio weapons all suck major ass to be hit by more than conventional munitions. But chemicals weapons don't delete cities and deter war.
You do realize that refusing to take the kid gloves off and get the job done only makes shit worse for both parties, yeah?
Like, if we went total war from day 1 in Iraq and Afghanistan, killing women, men, children, the whole bit, we could have McDonalds, golf courses, and walmarts up everywhere out there by now.
Instead, the area is still shit.
>we could have McDonalds
oh im so excited
but seriously edgelord, reply to this post here
t. he never saw what France did in WWII when the scary enemy came knocking.
modern chemical/biological warfare is a door best left closed, and everyone sane knows it and wants to keep it that way
>oh im so excited
Americanizing them by force would objectively be a better outcome for them than either leaving them alone or half assing it like we have been. We conquered the injuns on their own land, and today they're far better off for it. The same would happen in the middle east.
Go in there, bulldoze their mosques and temples, kill and torture enough of them to teach them not to get out of line, and gradually let them have privileges and teach them about freedom and walmart.
It's probable that such actions would have been met with regional condemnation, if not international. Furthermore, you are mistaken if you think you can just roll into these nations that are founded on religious and ideological principles and install a democracy.
Also, all you faggots are automatically assuming that chem warfare has to mean scary nerve gas and it doesn't.
If you want to cripple the enemy or put them in a tougher position, you might consider dusting their crops with herbicides or contaminating their water supply.
You can't americanise by force. It needs to be a decision of the nation that is made because it genuinely wants to be like America.
Here's what I know -- native American tribes were at least as different from colonial Americans as we are to habibs today.
Killing off a bunch of them and absorbing them worked out great. Today they're a perfectly content bunch who has air conditioning and casinos and fire water because of the white man's generosity.
o rly?
The easiest way to get that decision to integrate is through control. A majority is not going to integrate in to an invading minority. A conquered (now minority) will be absorbed by a new majority to ensure survival.
Which is why you see roasties from conquered countries fucking their conquerers.
Right now, you're learning about the possibility of destruction.
Six months ago, you had never heard of carbamates or white phosphorus, and when you learned about true destruction, you became scared.
It's natural, it's honestly healthy to be repulsed.
But you're trying to be cool, to be strong. You're still dumb enough to think macdonalds are made from the bones of dead children.
let me go ahead and tell you what that recipe actually makes: martyrs and just cause.
If you were in charge of anything, you'd give the entire world the moral responsibility to destroy us.
One day, you're going to look back on what you are now and cringe so hard. I hope you learn how to develop some self awareness.
Or maybe you're going to stay brain-damaged, idk.
also, you've literally never been within 500 miles of a reservation and i can tell because you don't understand that they're basically feather ghettos
the west totally destroyed the indians
The natives had nobody to complain too back then. Also, Americans were never going to start immigrating to the middle east when they had nice lives in america already. The best you can do is send in your prisoners, like britain did to Australia. But all of america's prisoners are black.
Don't attack civilians unless you mean to butcher them.
>they're basically feather ghettos
a trailerpark, medicaid, and foodstamps beats living in a teepee, dying from simple infections, and having to chase down or gather your own food. Their lives are indisputably easier today as a result of our benevolent conquest.
It's not like that anymore. Completely destroying a country in the region could force the other countries to unite to force you out of the region. There is also the certainty of UN interventions, because you are committing warcrimes.
Don't go to war unless you are ready and willing to go all the way and commit any and all monstrous acts.
Does anyone else think Sean Connery would have made a good Richard Marcinko if they ever made a movie about his books?
The entirety of NATO sans the US isn't fit to fight against the US.
We may lose friends, but if we make it clear that any attack on us results in a nuclear ragequit, nobody is going to do shit about it and you know it.
>a trailerpark, medicaid, and foodstamps beats living in a teepee,
untrue
> dying from simple infections,
whites brought untold horrors of disease.
the natives had naive immune systems that did nothing to save them
> having to chase down or gather your own food.
so you're not a man who knows how good it feels to accomplish something worthwhile
huh i couldn't have guessed
> Their lives are indisputably easier today as a result of our benevolent conquest.
how many died? how many indians were there before smallpox?
oh man i'm glad to have edgy advice from anonymous teenagers.
I almost made a serious strategic blunder
dingus there's this thing called "the economy" and i haven't got time to explain it
but your tendies come from somewhere and if you turn the world into green glass, there will be no more tendies
If you choose to read it as anything other than a plead for peace you have a problem.
literally unintelligible. wtf you mean nigga
They don't have to got to war with you. The UN exists to function as an alternative to war. What would happen is sanctions by everyone. The economic weakening of the US would result in it declining rapidly.
Shut the fuck up you liberal sub-80 IQ literal AIDS carrying faggot, nothing of what you said is true. Smallpox was brought by accident, yet leftists think it was a deliberate effort to kill off at most 20-40% of a population no more than a million.
there are children in iraq right now that have never even tasted a tendie and assholes like you are in denial that its our moral responsibility, by any means necessary, to give them that opportunity even if it means killing off half of them.
Except that won't happen either, at least not meaningfully. What we've learned about the world if anything is that shekels are more valuable than morals. The UN will condemn you, but that won't stop someone who wants to do business with you from doing it.
What we've actually learned is that it doesn't work that way. Sanctions crippled Russia badly after it invaded Ukraine, forcing it to make several budget cuts to defense, despite having lots of oil to sell.
>but all of americas prisoners are black
did you just solve the prison overpopulation and negro problem in one blow?
who would be worse
native afghans or the new african-afghani-american
it was an accident. I didn't say otherwise.
However, you can not say that it did not kill millions. you ignorant reactionary team-playing statist sheep
your party betrays you at every opportunity and the only thing your politicians give you is reasons to be ashamed
all i've got for you is laughter. Save this, record what you're writing so you can come back in three years and laugh with me
you feel so guilty that children die that you want to kill children.
In terms of power, you are totally non-existent.
You've done 16 years of nothing, yet you're consumed with regret for things you did not do
i bet i know what your race is
>hunter gatherers
>millions
Oh sweet sweet child.
Russia wasn't an economic and cultural juggernaut before it invaded Ukraine. The world isn't about to give up their Nikes and Iphones and McDonalds and American TV and music.
Hell, we made up a reason to invade Iraq, lied to other countries about it, shit on France for calling us out on it, went ahead and did it, destabilized the region directly contributing to euro countries being flooded today by refugees, and what consequences have we seen for it? Zilch. Nobody stopped doing business with us, nobody stopped buying our shit or selling to us.
As much as other countries like to believe they'd take a moral stand if the US started colonizing countries, the truth is that they'd take their cut of the oil and shut up.
o i am laughing
are you truly ignorant of pre-columbian horticulture and the notable societies extant in south america
Remembered watching this when I was 8 and those green fucking balls scared the fuck out of me.
>existing infrastructure
does not matter when all your food and water are still poisoned
Most people just die, chemical weapons are much worse because they're used at a smaller scale which means more frequently when unregulated.
>hunter gatherers
>millions
Oh sweet sweet child.
Nuclear fallout is almost a meme. The rate of cancer among survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are barely greater than that of the general population
Because they're mostly useful for terror attacks on civilians. Atropine injectors counter nerve agents and modern filtration works well too on a wide variety of substances.
CB is largely going to have to target civilians or the food supply.
>If you want to cripple the enemy or put them in a tougher position, you might consider dusting their crops with herbicides or contaminating their water supply.
both of which are illegal, and with good reason.
the reason these weapons were banned is because the nations fighting didn't want it to happen to them. poisoning a water supply is easy. if america started doing that, then someone could simply do it to america. and then what? you can't really escalate from that because your enemy is pretty much already fucking dead anyway. well done retard, you've given everyone no reason to ever surrender.
at that point just start and finish with nukes. the effect is the same and we wouldn't have to put up with 12 year old edgelord faggots like you jerking off over the bodies of murdered children and thinking you're hard in your parent's house.
the indian wars lasted for about 100 years. have fun with that in a country thousands of miles away you retarded fucking sperg.
>Don't go to war unless you are ready and willing to go all the way and commit any and all monstrous acts.
you've never even been in a fist fight. shut the fuck up you little faggot.
>Hell, we made up a reason to invade Iraq, lied to other countries about it, shit on France for calling us out on it, went ahead and did it, destabilized the region directly contributing to euro countries being flooded today by refugees, and what consequences have we seen for it? Zilch. Nobody stopped doing business with us, nobody stopped buying our shit or selling to us.
this is because it never really hurt anyone that mattered. literally who gives a fuck.
because that worked so well for the germans in ww2
>hunter gatherers
i don't think you've ever read a book or been to a museum because you ARE denying the mayans inca mississippi valley
don't you even remember the thanksgiving story? the Indians showed them how to plant corn with fish, right?
hunter gathers can't do that
Nukes are not on the table 99.9999% of the time.
Just because chemical weapons are outlawed, does not mean there aren't stockpiles of them. In an unlimited exchange, nobody cares about UN conventions or war crime laws.
>Midwestern tribes
>farm
Nigga you are fucking retarded beyond words, even tribes who farmed couldn't support support more than 500 people,
They had no draft animals or plows, so their agriculture was limited.
Chemical weapons are only useful at engaging civilian targets. Military targets just put on their gas masks and keep fighting.
The lack of infrastructure damage means the enemy can just repopulate the infrastructure with new workers. No, it's better to destroy the infrastructure outright and remove the ability to fight a war.
The only motivation for gas weapons is a war of extermination and there is nothing to gain out of a war of extermination.
The difference is that nukes are actually effective weapons, they do lots of damage, that's why people are ok with the amount of suffering they cause.
Modern nukes produce very little radiation. In part this was to avoid poisoning the territory you want to capture but also because it makes the bombs more efficient.
Because it doesn't work. Britain and Germany bombed the hell out of eachother and that did nothing to lessen their resolve.
France surrendered because their field army was completely destroyed and Germany had a way into it's industrial sectors. There wasn't a means of continued resistance, the Nazis could destroy any army before it was raised.
Hurting civilians does not cause them to rebel, it strengthens their loyalty. Weve seen this in ww2 UK, ww2 germany, ww2 russia, vietnam, americans after 911, etc, etc.
On top of that it also hurts the morale of your own troops. Its hard to believe in your cause when president sociopath orders you to target toddlers.
>The only motivation for gas weapons is a war of extermination and there is nothing to gain out of a war of extermination.
>implying there's nothing to gain from exterminating Tolkien orcs
Because not many people want to suffer a retaliatory chemical weapons attack. They're not known for being a pleasant way to die.
>I am a moron
kys
does sarin gas really come in BBB bath beads?
No. Neither does VX, which is what this is supposed to be. And it also isn't green, it's clear and oily. Weaponized, it would be a binary agent in the delivery device, mixed after deployment.
>Hell, we made up a reason to invade Iraq, lied to other countries about it, shit on France for calling us out on it, went ahead and did it, destabilized the region directly contributing to euro countries being flooded today by refugees, and what consequences have we seen for it?
This fucking meme. Syria had a major Islamist uprising in the 1980s. Egypt had an insurgency throughout the 1990s.
Uniformed people think large scale Jihadism started in 2003, but it was a wave that had been building since 1973.
America gets blamed for the figures, in part because there is a huge Russian Propaganda push for this narrative ("just leave Syria and the Middle East to us, America invented IS, just give us control of a strategic reason. The Middle East was totally stable before 2003")
No. Iraq had giant revolts after Desert Storm and conspiracies from the 1980s on for Shia revolts. The Kurds did revolts.
America gets shit from liberals for partnering with Syria and Egypt after 2001 to help them crack down on jihads. Fact is, before 9/11 Bin Laden was a minority in wanting to attack the West head on. Most focused on the "near enemy," i.e. Arab secular dictators, not the "far enemy."
So while the Iraq invasion drew in far more volunteers to Jihadism, it also shifted focus to the US and away from dictators, while getting Arab dictators US support.
Assad played a double game of placating Jihadism by letting them use Syria as a safe haven to infiltrate al Anbar. He even supported Sunni extremists with Iranian weapons to by friendship, or at least a peace, and to fuck with the US. Obama pulls the US out and the blow back is fucking hilarious. The Sunni extremists are now dug in in Western Syria and Iraq and when the civil war pops off, due to Assad's own incompetent and sectarian rule, the blowback on Iran and Syria is hilarious.
And then again the US pulls their chestnuts out of the fire by destroying IS in Iraq and western Syria, while the Iran, Russia, Syria
Team kept trying to use IS as a catspaw against other rebels.
The counterfactual you are trying to assert is that Egypt is more stable against Jihadism without billions in US economic and military aid, despite the Egyptian military being a massive jobs program for young Egyptian men.
The spark for Syria and Libya was Tunisia and Egypt, and it's hard to blame Iraq for that.
What the US and Europe did do that is more important was the 2008 financial crisis which spiked unemployment for young Arab men sky high and tripped food prices. That was they key factor in sparking the revolts (proximate key factor, Arab dictators misrule and Saudi support for Jihadism and it's long build up is second). I'd put Iraq behind all those factors, even less than 2008 which was the real fuel.
'Cause
They really aren't very effective
So are chemical weapons by the time you get to that point. They're in the same category.
>The UN
>Stopping conflict
LMAO
M
A
O
Actually it's agreed upon by most anthropologists that the US native population suffered a massive unknown population collpase prior to Europeans making contact. Its theorised that it was some sort of plague originating in South America
At one point, MRNA analysis indicates that the entire human race was down to about 1000 people or so. So yeah, you Ayran Master Racers, your great^alot grandparents are the same as whatever race you hate. Enjoy.
Better question is why didn't people care so much about flame throwers, actual burns are magnitudes more painful then chemical burns. Was it because they were just more ineffective?
i said horticulture, because as far as i know, agriculture was completely unknown. that's when you get an animal to pull, horticulture is growing without such benefits.
Also, why are you trying to throw midwestern tribes in my teeth? i didn't mention them at all but i did mention three other hugely successful groups.
> nukes
> people are ok with the amount of suffering they cause.
i just want to know why you think that
Fire does not linger in areas like chemicals, and has targets chosen by the operator instead of filling whole villages with gas. A big part of military doctrine is the ability to discriminate your target.
Worked great up until Hitler sperged out and decided to fight two fronts. If he could have kept his autism in check and left Russia alone while fighting the western front he probably could have pulled shit off.
Go genocide or go home you massive faggot. If the enemy surrenders before being wiped out, fine. But don't go in expecting that. Go in savage ready to kill all of them.
says the guy who descended from single cell organisms, LOL
WE'RE ALL THE SAME GOYS
>Why shouldn't threatening civilians be a legitimate warfare tactic?
It would come down to MAD type situations, even with smaller countries.
To be honest, you can never take out all offensive weapons in time. Whatever country you are from, is going to get hit too. Also, these days the technology is not available because countries have agreements to not use it. If they didn't the technology would not only be available but pursued by any and all countries.
In the end you can take it a bit further too - "why not use salted bombs to ruin the enemy's whole country for hundreds of years?".
>Like, if we went total war from day 1 in Iraq and Afghanistan,
The world isn't Iraq and Afghanistan, it's also developed countries like Russia and China which could use that same "kill all civilians" type of philosophy to hit USA in a war.
And no, you wouldn't survive. THEY wouldn't survive retaliation, but in the end, you wouldn't survive, no matter what happened to THEM.
That's why it's better to not play with the idea, it's not good for anyone.
yeah Let's kill civilians in horrific deaths so all of them enlist so they can avenge their families and friends, fueled by anger and hate against your people, the same feelings that creates terrorists.
>nobody is going to do shit about it and you know it.
Oh shut up, they could develop ICBM technology in a matter of years and make it clear that US is going to get it if it launches anything at anyone.
No reason to limit the number, thousands of missiles could be produced. You're confusing the choice to not produce ICBM with the capability to not produce them. Be happy that USA is liked by most countries because there's no real technical obstacles to such thing happening. Enjoy the fruits of friendship and diplomacy because it hasn't always been like this.
This. We're basically just fish
>takes them years to get the ICBMs together
>takes us like 15 minutes to get the ICBMs we already have in the air.
Seems like a losing bet partner.
Enjoy jail or even death by a firing squadron
Only if you lose
It has nothing to do with the nature of the pain they inflict, civilian death, or any of those things. It has to do with primal human understanding of what conflict is and isn't or rather should and shouldn't me.
War is seen traditionally, historically as honorable when conducted in the open and with no hidden agenda. The destruction q your enemy by force should be accompanied by the equal risk of your own loss and suffering. That is traditional gallantry of battle. Marching into battle, or riding, or parachuting, or flying a fighter jet into battle accompanies the risk that should you be captured by the civilian population of your enemy they will likely kill you. So the total destruction of your enemy by absolute, open force including civilians was acceptable for all human history because it carried the risk that those civilians may still form armies to oppose you and destroy your invading force as well. Secret means of weakening your enemy like poisoning wells or causing blood sicknesses or even rabble rousing and weakening moral by means of spies and provocateurs was seen as less than honorable and in the case of poisons and other dastardly stratagems that did not require you to risk destruction openly were likely to cause infamy and a strengthening of your enemies resolve.
Part two:
This all changed with the advent of professional armies and civilians no longer feeling personally responsible to fight and enemy and therefore free from the risk of destruction in combat. (even though that has proved more or less untrue). However the notion of open and accountable destruction being acceptable and secret dastardly poisoning still mostly remains buried in the psyche. The next phase will see how AI/drone weapons with autonomous kill capability are deployed and then regulated. I feel they strike the same chords of non-gallantry as chemical weapons and poisoning of wells of old. Even the crews that dropped the atomic weapons had to risk getting shot down, captured, tortured, as well as live with the images and knowledge that they killed so many. I think that is an important part of war. To take a human life should require the active human involvement and acknowledgement of a human. Only then is the value and significance of human life persevered. It is a very significant thing to take a human life even in the most morally justified circumstances and on the largest scales. We should honor human life, and even our enemies by preserving that balance of risk and loss and suffering required by all participants or we will loose more than just civilians. We will loose our humanity.
Yeah the rest of the world will not only boycott the shit out of you, but actually fucking hate you, causing every American citizen to hate you too for being the reason because. Expect rival politicians pushing their agenda and a good old fashioned coup d'état.
Honestly, fuck the rest of the world. America should take what it wants and kill anyone who gets in the way. That's the natural order of things.
Wrong, you're only thinking of persistent agents. Non-persistant agents are used to prep targets before assaults.
Expect bullets, a lot of them
Coming from your own people to your government if they ever try to be a fucking tyranny. Enjoy being on a trial