[j9461701]

I find myself mostly agreeing with this article, although I think it over-states its case slightly and this section highlights why.

Chemical weapons are not very useful on a tactical level, and modernly nuclear weapons are superior on the strategic level. But for a brief period between 1915 and 1945, they were an attractive solution for mass death on a strategic level. A 1,000 pound explosive bomb, with WW2 level targeting, is very unlikely to hit its target and will likely explode some random unpopulated building. A 1,000 ton mustard gas bomb, though it won't hit its target (because WW2 era bombing accuracy), will still have its payload disperse over a wide area and is utterly horrific to deal with. As the article notes, the 1995 sarin attack in Japan injured over 1,000 people. Chemical weapons may not be good for winning a battle, but they're perfect as a terror weapon meant to go after civilians.

In a sense, chemical weapons are a kind of 'poor man's nuke'. Russia and America are standing down their chemical weapons because they have actual nukes, and don't need to also have 2nd rate knock offs.

The article tries to point to WW2 as an example of nations being in existential peril, and still not using chemical weapons, and concluding this means they were ineffective even as terror weapons. But I think that doesn't hold water upon closer analysis - the moment a single German soldier's boot stepped foot on the British isles, which is to say the UK actually faced imminent threat of conquest, Churchill planned to quote "drench [Germany] in gas".

Later on in the war chemical weapons were avoided not for fear of retaliation in itself, but for fear of how one's own people would respond to said retaliation. If you are Great Britain, and public morale for the war is hanging on by a thread, do you want to roll the dice and gas attack Germany - thereby causing Germany to gas attack your civilians - and risk support for the war collapsing? In 1944 Churchill asked for a 'cold blooded analysis' about gassing Germany, and the response that came back was basically "We're already winning the war, and mass gas deployment would be needlessly taking chances. Do not do it!". Churchill famously disagreed with this analysis, but didn't push the matter any further.

[kelnos]

> As the article notes, the 1995 sarin attack in Japan injured over 1,000 people.

Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely killed all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have?

> In a sense, chemical weapons are a kind of 'poor man's nuke'. Russia and America are standing down their chemical weapons because they have actual nukes, and don't need to also have 2nd rate knock offs.

The article explicitly notes this as well, that chemical weapons are only really used by weaker, less-monied, static-system militaries. And even then, they're only effective against similar adversaries, not against more modern enemies.

But "poor man's nuke" isn't even really a great characterization from the perspective of the US or Russia: with a modern military, chemical weapons do less damage than a cheaper, lighter, easier-to-deploy explosive. They're not a "poor man's nuke", they're just a poor man's weapon, period.

[j9461701]

>Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely killed all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have?

Looking it up on wikipedia, most suicide bomber vests weigh roughly as much (5 kg) or up to 4 times as much (20 kg) as all the sarin used in this attack (5.45 kg). I've never heard of a single suicide bomber, using a vest, injuring 1,000 people. So I am inclined to think the chemical approach is more efficacious.

In fact that's another little nitpick I have with the article - it's high explosives that heavily benefit from tightly packed situations, as they're a one-and-done sort of deal. The sarin gas though was able to be spread all along a tube system, and cause problems for huge amounts of people.

[afthonos]

“Equivalent” is also a matter of perspective. For a terrorist, procuring the necessary explosives to injure 1000 people may be harder than procuring the equivalent sarin gas. For a state, the calculus changes, as do goals. Storage, transportation, safety (states are much less likely to be willing to have their own soldiers die than terror cells), all those concerns can tip the balance, especially for a strong state with a modern army.

[lstodd]

> procuring the necessary explosives to injure 1000 people may be harder than procuring the equivalent sarin gas

Bullshit.

Procuring sarin is nontrivial organic synthesis. Procuring ANFO is just a question of ordering some diesel and fertilizer.

[dmurray]

> Sure, but an equivalent conventional high explosive would have likely killed all those 1,000 people, wouldn't it have?

5 kg of explosives? Definitely not.

[lstodd]

> 5 kg of explosives? Definitely not.

For the costs they went with for the gas they could have toppled half a dozen skyscrapers in Tokyo.

They were insane.

[CydeWeys]

Per the linked article, the London civilian populace was widely equipped with gas masks. A chemical weapon would thus cause fewer fatalities than you might expect.

A 1,000 lb bomb falling on an apartment building, however, would definitely have a significant death toll.

Keep in mind that the total civilian casualty count on the British side during the Battle of Britain was 43k dead and 139k wounded, all from conventional explosives. Those are substantial figures. It's not clear how chemical weapons could have ever remotely killed as many, because after the first few successful attacks the gas masks would be emphasized even more, and everyone would be carrying theirs with them everywhere they went, ready to don at a moment's notice. As the article points out, you can armor even a civilian populace against chemical weapons relatively easily, but you can't armor a city against high explosives.

[Joker_vD]

> will still have its payload disperse over a wide area and is utterly horrific to deal with. As the article notes, the 1995 sarin attack in Japan injured over 1,000 people.

In closed spaces. In closed spaces, chemical weapons are pretty effective, cf. "gas chamber", but in open spaces they are much less deadly.