Historian looks at why first line militaries have avoided using chemical weapons since WWI.

[Sequoia]

First I want to say I fully support Battlefront's and the Cold War designers decision not to simulate chemical weapons use in Cold War.

I'm not qualified enough to critique the linked essay, but the author argues, despite all the major players training to defend against chemical attack, their use would probably not have occurred in our Cold War gone hot Germany setting.

 

Collections: Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore? – A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry (acoup.blog)

[Sgt Joch]

The reason both sides avoided use of chemical weapons in WW2 is because it was a Pandora’s box, each side had enough to cause massive casualties to the other side so there was no long term advantage to be gained.

What was more likely to be looked at in the Cold War was the use of “tactical” nuclear weapons. Now that a lot of documents are becoming de-classified, you see that, for example, the U.S. military explored the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons in Vietnam. Westmoreland had plans drawn up in 1967-68 called “Fracture Jaw” to use tactical nuclear (and chemical) weapons to defend Khe Sanh if the Vietnamese attacked and it looked like they might overrun the base. At the height of the Tet Offensive in early feb.68, he cabled that he might have to get immediate Presidential  approval to the plan.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Sgt Joch

[Megalon Jones]

The author's methodology is suspect.  You can only arrive at that particular conclusion if you conveniently ignore Iraq, Rhodesia, the use of defoliants in Vietnam, the use of CB weapons in China during WW2 et al.  He's right in that NBC would make an unholy mess of the battlefield, but ignores the fact that these decisions are made by national leadership who have incentives differing from the military.

[Sequoia]

4 hours ago, Megalon Jones said:

The author's methodology is suspect.  You can only arrive at that particular conclusion if you conveniently ignore Iraq, Rhodesia, the use of defoliants in Vietnam, the use of CB weapons in China during WW2 et al.  He's right in that NBC would make an unholy mess of the battlefield, but ignores the fact that these decisions are made by national leadership who have incentives differing from the military.

But he doesn't ignore them.

[Centurian52]

4 hours ago, Megalon Jones said:

The author's methodology is suspect.  You can only arrive at that particular conclusion if you conveniently ignore Iraq, Rhodesia, the use of defoliants in Vietnam, the use of CB weapons in China during WW2 et al.  He's right in that NBC would make an unholy mess of the battlefield, but ignores the fact that these decisions are made by national leadership who have incentives differing from the military.

He doesn't ignore Iraq. There's a whole section on why weak armies such as those of Iraq and Syria do still use chemical weapons. He does ignore the use of defoliants in Vietnam, justifying that decision by saying he wants to limit the scope of the article to the use of chemical weapons to kill people on a battlefield (while defoliants did kill people, they were meant to kill plants). As for Rhodesia and China in WW2 I assume there simply wasn't time to bring up every example.

The use of chemical weapons in China in WW2 might make a good counterpoint to his arguments. It depends on whether the Chinese and Japanese armies of WW2 fall into what he calls "modern system armies" or "static system armies". Given the lack of initiative entrusted to low level Japanese officers and the lack of mechanization I might be tempted to place the Japanese army in the latter category rather than the first, which would conveniently keep it in line with his arguments. But I know far more about the European theater than I do about the Asia/Pacific theater so I will readily admit that that categorization might not hold up under examination.

Edited August 8, 2021 by Centurian52
adding second paragraph

[holoween]

Interesting article.

I think its better put as ineffective against armies that are capable of dealing with it via equipment and training.

Everything else stated is somewhat questionable.

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, Megalon Jones said:

The author's methodology is suspect.  You can only arrive at that particular conclusion if you conveniently ignore Iraq, Rhodesia, the use of defoliants in Vietnam, the use of CB weapons in China during WW2 et al.  He's right in that NBC would make an unholy mess of the battlefield, but ignores the fact that these decisions are made by national leadership who have incentives differing from the military.

Good point re the actual use.   In addition to chemical weapons as the "poor country's" nukes, also, mines and IED's are a poor person's answer to a high tech enemy.  Naturally, the rich nations want to make these weapons "illegal" since it's where the rich high tech nations are vulnerable (per Iraq etc).

What is also interesting is the use biological weapons.  

[Lethaface]

@Sequoia interesting article and website, thanks. 

I think his reasoning is spot on on the macro level. The 'success' of the ban on chemical weapons has more to do with the effectiveness / efficiency of the weapon than with moral reasons.

 Also fully agree on his view on why cluster munitions will never be banned successfully. I always think we might as well (or even better) invest in proper micro self destruction mechanisms for bomblets made available open source, compared to trying to ban stuff that will be used until something more effective comes up.

Edited August 9, 2021 by Lethaface