There are no such thing as laws of war. War is the loss of authority and civility. Laws require both. Sure, we can make laws of war, but as we’ve seen time and time again, nobody follows them. Violence is the only law that nature knows.
You clearly have never fought and don’t know that supply lines and order are crucial to war. If combat devolved into some inhumane, amoral tragedy for every interaction, nothing would be accomplished. But war is about forcibly stopping an opponent, not about going crazy and ignoring all sense or rules. Chemical weapons require an insane amount of discipline to make, move, store, use, and dispose of some of the most dangerous ordinance imaginable.
“War is lawless” is what the naive say. Experience knows better.
The reason chemical weapons are banned is because (they’re monstrous and) they’re useless. You can fire a chlorine shell and if the wind is juuust right, it’ll kill anyone within a few meters. You know what else will kill anyone within a few meters? A normal artillery shell.
Except, chlorine gas can be blocked by an airtight gas mask and a chemical suit. They cost less than $500 for complete immunity to the weapon. Good luck finding a $500 flak vest that’ll stop a mortar though. And meanwhile, if you want to press the attack and benefit from your chemical weapons, there’s one slight problem before you advance: there’s a bunch of chlorine gas in the way.
In other words, it’s an unreliable and inferior weapon that gets in the way of modern military doctrine. Although there are some good niches in shitty armies by dictators who are too paranoid of coups to give their junior officers any independence or proper kit. Like the Iraq army that the US army utterly steamrolled in 2005.
Far from useless against unprotected troops - especially in area denial and degrading enemy combat effectiveness. The real issue of practicality is that they’re a matter of mutual deterrent - if Side A starts using chemical weapons, Side B may decide to start as well. But as you mentioned, we’ve solved the issue of protective equipment pretty thoroughly, so in all but the most lopsided of conflicts (Iran-Iraq War, Syrian Civil War, police against protesters), escalation does not actually give either side an advantage beyond the initial shock, and introduces a lot of unnecessary defensive and offensive logistics, the total effect of which is likely difficult to determine. How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth keeping a platoon of soldiers in gas masks for a few hours longer? How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth the enemy shelling you in turn and forcing you to spend valuable resources and logistics lines on NBC gear? Who comes out with the advantage in this asymmetric exchange - the one with more resources, or the one with fewer? Nightmare to tell.
Russia currently is using chemical weapons effectively in Ukraine - namely, tear gas. Great for disabling dug-in enemies so mobik meat cube ingredients mass infantry assaults can advance. We (the West) also use chemical weapons effectively - we claim WP as a smokescreen, but its application tends to be very, uh, ‘dual-use’ in smoking troops out of entrenched positions. In both cases, the effectiveness relies on deniability and prevention of escalation.
Fun fact about tear gas - they’ll spray down protesters with it, but if it was used in warfare it would pretty obviously break the principal of not using maiming weapons, which was laid down in the Hague convention and mostly continues to be respected by big militaries.
You follow the rules of war because it’s in your interests to do so. You treat POWs fairly, because you want your opponent to treat your own captured people fairly. You don’t pull a false surrender move, because that will come back to haunt you when you need to actually surrender. You don’t use chemical weapons, because using them would mean your opponent starts using them.
Granted, this tends to work better with peer powers. When there’s an imbalance, the larger power often gets to do whatever they want.
There are no such thing as laws of war. War is the loss of authority and civility. Laws require both. Sure, we can make laws of war, but as we’ve seen time and time again, nobody follows them. Violence is the only law that nature knows.
You clearly have never fought and don’t know that supply lines and order are crucial to war. If combat devolved into some inhumane, amoral tragedy for every interaction, nothing would be accomplished. But war is about forcibly stopping an opponent, not about going crazy and ignoring all sense or rules. Chemical weapons require an insane amount of discipline to make, move, store, use, and dispose of some of the most dangerous ordinance imaginable.
“War is lawless” is what the naive say. Experience knows better.
Laws not stopping murder doesn’t mean laws against murder are useless
Okay Cicero, let’s get you back to your isolated country estate
The reason chemical weapons are banned is because (they’re monstrous and) they’re useless. You can fire a chlorine shell and if the wind is juuust right, it’ll kill anyone within a few meters. You know what else will kill anyone within a few meters? A normal artillery shell.
Except, chlorine gas can be blocked by an airtight gas mask and a chemical suit. They cost less than $500 for complete immunity to the weapon. Good luck finding a $500 flak vest that’ll stop a mortar though. And meanwhile, if you want to press the attack and benefit from your chemical weapons, there’s one slight problem before you advance: there’s a bunch of chlorine gas in the way.
In other words, it’s an unreliable and inferior weapon that gets in the way of modern military doctrine. Although there are some good niches in shitty armies by dictators who are too paranoid of coups to give their junior officers any independence or proper kit. Like the Iraq army that the US army utterly steamrolled in 2005.
Far from useless against unprotected troops - especially in area denial and degrading enemy combat effectiveness. The real issue of practicality is that they’re a matter of mutual deterrent - if Side A starts using chemical weapons, Side B may decide to start as well. But as you mentioned, we’ve solved the issue of protective equipment pretty thoroughly, so in all but the most lopsided of conflicts (Iran-Iraq War, Syrian Civil War, police against protesters), escalation does not actually give either side an advantage beyond the initial shock, and introduces a lot of unnecessary defensive and offensive logistics, the total effect of which is likely difficult to determine. How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth keeping a platoon of soldiers in gas masks for a few hours longer? How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth the enemy shelling you in turn and forcing you to spend valuable resources and logistics lines on NBC gear? Who comes out with the advantage in this asymmetric exchange - the one with more resources, or the one with fewer? Nightmare to tell.
Russia currently is using chemical weapons effectively in Ukraine - namely, tear gas. Great for disabling dug-in enemies so
mobik meat cube ingredientsmass infantry assaults can advance. We (the West) also use chemical weapons effectively - we claim WP as a smokescreen, but its application tends to be very, uh, ‘dual-use’ in smoking troops out of entrenched positions. In both cases, the effectiveness relies on deniability and prevention of escalation.Fun fact about tear gas - they’ll spray down protesters with it, but if it was used in warfare it would pretty obviously break the principal of not using maiming weapons, which was laid down in the Hague convention and mostly continues to be respected by big militaries.
Tear gas was one of the first chemical weapons deployed in WW1, even.
“Can’t be a war crime if it’s not during war time!” - Cops
(unironically I actually understand the rationale, but it remains absurd on its face)
Yeah, “mostly” was pretty load bearing there, haha. It’s just odd that enemy soldiers end up having more rights than civilians in certain contexts.
Prison escapes being highly illegal in some jurisdictions is another example.
You follow the rules of war because it’s in your interests to do so. You treat POWs fairly, because you want your opponent to treat your own captured people fairly. You don’t pull a false surrender move, because that will come back to haunt you when you need to actually surrender. You don’t use chemical weapons, because using them would mean your opponent starts using them.
Granted, this tends to work better with peer powers. When there’s an imbalance, the larger power often gets to do whatever they want.