[shklnrj]

I think the main point was missed in the article. Chemical weapons cause more suffering and less death and cause multi generation effects, while other weapons are primarily hit/miss but geared towards death.

It might seem weird, but death is considered better than suffering by lots of people. I give an example. In the series Chernobyl - soldiers are employed to kill dogs because they might spread radiation. The senior soldier instructs that when you see a dog - keep shooting, till it dies.

In old times, slow killing was considered to be much worse as compared to sudden death. So maybe this is why we don't use chemical weapons.

[behindsight]

Apologies if I misunderstood, but I don't think that particular point was missed; it seems to be the article's first stated viewpoint actually:

> the narrative I got was fairly clear: we didn’t use chemical weapons because after World War I the nations of the world got together and decided that chemical weapons were just too horrible and banned them, and that this was a sign of something called ‘progress.’

That point is even further iterated on in the conclusion when comparing them to cluster munitions which as you put, "cause multi generation effects" due to remaining active years after the conflict.

[GeorgeWBasic]

What could possibly be considered weird about that? How could anyone consider slow killing to not be worse than sudden death? They're both death, but one is much worse. It's much more weird to be talking about suffering and slow death as though they aren't worse, and that only weird people think they are.