[codefreeordie]

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.

In general, conventional weaponry is more effective at accomplishing military objectives.

[Gregaros]

I see you’ve read the blog post by noted military historian Bret Devereaux and boiled the whole thing down to three sentences for everyone, but you’ve missed some of the nuance that makes him so fascinating to read.

I recommend everyone else ignore this summary and give the link a click, acoup.blog’s always a delight.

[EarlKing]

It's not even that. The purpose of mustard gas, for example, is principally to force unmasked troops to vacate the trenches. As a rule we don't do much trench warfare anymore. (Yes, yes, I know... Ukraine enters the chat) With most warfare over the last century having been wars of maneuver, urban conflict, aerial bombardment, or artillery duels... there's just not much use for chemical weapons. They're only useful for clearing people out of confined spaces... hence why tear gas continues to be used for crowd control in cities.

[MichaelCollins]

Mustard isn't like tear gas; it's persistent. It's not really a gas at all; it's actually a mist of liquid droplets. The mist then condenses on everything in the area and contaminates it for weeks. Anybody who comes into contact with it without protective gear (more than a gas mask) will suffer debilitating injuries. If you get it on your skin, your skin will fall off. This makes mustard generally useful for area denial, particularly against opponents that aren't ready to suit up and decontaminate everything. Drop a lot of mustard on a supply depot, command post, etc, and all of that equipment now needs to be decontaminated before it can be used again.

[Comevius]

Also because of a lack of imagination. Imagine using these puppies in large cities. The world lacks a better class of terrorists. Saudi Arabia used to do some wild stuff with planes back in 2001, prompting the United States to kill a million people in completely unrelated countries, but now we are back to car bombs and incels running with guns when we have a whole spectrum of biological, chemical and radioactive agents waiting to be unleashed.

[ceejayoz]

I am both baffled and relieved that most terrorists seem to lack creativity.

[girvo]

Typically if you’re creative and smart enough to attempt certain horrific things, that seems to be self limiting. Those who can’t, don’t want to, for various reasons, and those who want to and would, can’t. It’s fascinating.

Where that gets dangerous is when the horror under discussion becomes democratised. TATP is simple to synthesise (though incredibly dangerous when done clandestinely), and so we saw a rise of bombings and attempted bombings using it as that knowledge spread, for example.

[alan-crowe]

Every-one needs to be a hero in their own head.

So you are fairly safe. You can only fall victim to heroic terrorist attacks.

But not as safe as that sounds. It is about being a hero according to the attackers head cannon, not your head cannon.

Terrorist attacks are down stream from culture. Keep an eye on what movies, novels, religions, and preachers call heroic. The terrorist attacks of 2052 will be distorted versions of what is heroic today.

[worthless-trash]

I don't think its creativity limiting the actions, its factors of capability, reliability and gullibility of those carrying out the actions.

Batman style "poisoning the water supply" isnt really a viable option due to the complexities of pulling it off successfully.

[bombcar]

Anyone who is not directly involved in the various things like water supply doesn’t realize all the safety measures and such that in place to prevent accidental contamination- which also help detect and prevent intentional damage.

The total number of terrorists is small, and their ability is limited. But that may not always be the case.

[worthless-trash]

Exactly this.

[adolph]

Something something fluoridation of water supplies . . . precious bodily fluids.

[worthless-trash]

Its funny how the modern social commentiary associates "incels" with the classes of people they disagree with. It is evident that these people do reproduce.

[Comevius]

They are actually calling themselves incels, they are not shameful of it. I wasn't being snarky, they are really digging the identity and the subculture, along with the rape and the mass murder. Every other post on incel forums is some variation of I'm being rejected by women, thus my bloodline ends with me, but not before I end many other bloodlines, which actually makes me a winner. Incels love violence, it's their entire thing.

[nicoburns]

I don’t think incels love violence or their identities. They hate their own lives and are reacting with anger.

[socialismisok]

Incels and "lone wolf" shooters had/have a significant overlap.

[Jensson]

In one direction perhaps, not many incels become lone wolf shooters.

[smoldesu]

There's still a number of prominent examples of chemical terrorist attacks, but they're mostly arranged by larger groups rather than 2 angry 4channers. Aum Shinrikyo injured hundreds in their sarin gas attacks, and the Rajneeshee bioterror attack left hundreds sick and dozens hospitalized.

The reason we don't see more of this is pretty straightforward. Although we have active imaginations, the majority of people carrying out these attacks are not Walter White. It takes organizational power to pull off an attack like that.

[jillesvangurp]

It's probably more because of the horrific effects it has mainly on non-military targets and the fact that people tend to be held accountable afterwards. As happened to e.g. Chemical Ali, a general in the Iraqi regime famous for his use of chemical weapons on civilians, who was hanged in 2010 for his actions. Likewise the mere hint of such weapons being used in Syria, caused them to be isolated further.

So, most modern military would be keenly aware that the use of such weapons might have long term consequences for them personally and hands the moral high ground to their opponent almost automatically almost immediately. This has mostly negative consequences short term and it's probably counter productive. If that was not the case, we'd be seeing those weapons used in e.g. the Ukraine right now by the Russians. And they seem to have no reservations about targeting civilians otherwise. But it's hard to spin gassing civilians as heroic or patriotic. Even in Russia. Kind of destroys their de-nazificaton pitch.

Even the Nazis did not go there during WWII. Aside of course from committing genocide as part of the holocaust. They did actually develop chemical weapons but they never deployed them on the battle field: https://www.history.com/news/the-nazis-developed-sarin-gas-b...