 |
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
When someone goes on about Jews controling America, it's an anti-semetic rant. I don't know why MtG had to ask for clarification. |
You just prove my point the the Jewish Lobbery call anybody whom disaggress with them anti-semetic and you blindly say I than av anti-semetic because they say so.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
Erh, are WW1 experiences really relevant?
1. Those were blistering agents. Nerve agents are more difficult (though not impossible) to protect against
2. Means of delivery were primitive. Today we have air delivery, which can send the weapons well behind the front, where A. The attacker faces less risk from a change of wind B. The attacked are less likely to wear protective gear and C. may be civilians. |
The French Rev leader where thinking of useing chorline gas against the attacking armies from aust and prussia.
Some of member of the GOP control congress want to use poison gases jorning our civil war 1860-1865 the army refuse to use just gases as there was no protection at all and the wind can change direction on you and the cost to manufactore just gases where hight.
There was talk also of useing poision gases durning the Criman war between Turkey,England, French against Russia and the same reason was given by the army on why they didnot like the idear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
Oh yes, I forgot that it's a 'defoliant'. Such a nice, dainty, term they use describe it, isn't it? It makes it sound so.... harmless. |
Your point? You seem to have missed mine - that it actually does have a peaceful application. Hell, nitroglycerine has a peaceful application.
quote:
You just keep on believing that. |
Didn't you already agree that they did not intend for it to kill people? Thus, how can you disagree with the statement "it wasn't spread over a wide area in order to cause death and/or destruction (of people)"?
quote:
I guess the military designed, tested, and deployed it against their enemies for a laugh. When practical jokes go awry... |
No, to kill plants, as I've said fifty times. Do you by any chance have some sort of mental disability?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
They're banned because they cause unnecessary suffering. Like some types of bullet. I don't think they should be legalised, since the suffering argument is perfectly legit.
|
 Seems to me the issues weren't so much "suffering" as the high degree of lethality, persistency, and decontamination issues, coupled with the likelihood of retaliation in kind and the possibility of loss of control over escalation of NBC conflicts. The banning of hollow point ammo is a one-off aberration, since many "legal" munitions cause worse damage, then and now..
quote:
What about landmines? They persist. They're designed for it. As well as unexploded stuff generally. What about depleted uranium? It's toxic, and sticks around.
|
Landmines are an entirely different issue - they can be designed to deactivate after set periods of time, or to be made detectable, and there was a strong impetus to ban APMs. DU is toxic, but it is still debatable and scientific evidence is far from clear that DU exposure on the battlefield or in ordnance handling results in higher casualties. The claimed after-effects are also debatable, given the number of other toxic hazards in and around modern battlefields, and limited study.
quote:
Patroklos said "it was death on a scale no artillery shell could muster".
I don't see how you can claim that gas was developed because artillery left survivors; if anything, gas left behind more and also didn't damage enemy fortifications. I don't think that it was 'developed' for any reason other than it seemed like a good idea.
It certainly did not have much effect on the outcome of the First World War.
|
Generally, one weapon system is developed because it is more effective than it's predecessors. Gas application in the first world war wasn't much more than field testing of new technology. Certainly there wouldn't have been as many survivors with modern delivery of VX, and the effect on the war would a bit more pronounced. Airplanes and tanks didn't have much effect in WWI either, that sure as hell doesn't mean that the rifle and machine gun still rule the battlefield.
quote:
I happen to believe that the frequency of weapons systems used might have had something to do with their usefulness, especially as the war dragged on (and the primitive tactics used initially gave way to more advanced ones). Gas wasn't very effective; that's the simplest explanation.
|
Resistance to new technology, and the lack of time to refine the technology given the dynamic nature of warfare is more of an issue. Airplanes weren't effective either, yet they're now the dominant delivery system for every type of heavy ordnance. In the four year span of WW1, there really wasn't a hell of a lot of time devoted to technological refinement of new weapon systems.
quote:
You don't just detect nukes, chemical and biological weapons with specialised sniffing equipment. Conventional techniques are used as well, i.e. radar to spot for planes carrying them.
|
Totally different issues - detection of an attack before it occurs is not the same as determination of whether or not hazardous levels of an NBC agent exist in a given location.
quote:
And you can detect explosives with sniffer dogs.
|
If you want to get that close, and the poor things would go apeshit. Do you really think that explosive ordnance is scarce in a combat zone occupied by military forces?
quote:
Low-grade exposure; what about getting only slightly wounded by shrapnel? Doesn't that count as low-grade exposure for conventional weapons?
|
 Those pieces of metal hauled out of my arms, legs and ass don't seem to have caused permanent organ or genetic damage.
quote:
Anyway, suppose I wanted to group together nukes with conventional weapons. I could just as quickly cobble together a short list of similarities: Creates heat, destroys buildings, delivered in the same basic manner as conventional weapons,
|
You could probably come up with some cute but functionally meaningless grouping of bacon and eggs with conventional weapons, too. Of course there are some similarities, but not in scale of effect, long term hazards, likelihood of hazards to noncombatants, or potential for retaliatory escalation.
quote:
Patroklos said that in order to use chemical weapons effectively, you'd need to use thousands of gallons of it. That entails quite a few planes, does it not?
|
If you went for air delivery, a B-52 or two could do it. If you're talking artillery delivery, you're looking at maybe one percent as many fire missions by 155mm arty to do the job more effectively than with conventional HE.
quote:
Most of this applies to gas attacks as well. |
Not even close in scale - you're talking 20 to 1 to 200 to 1 depending on the conditions for use of a CW agent, in terms of rounds fired, much longer in terms of duration (resupply of HE rounds and barrel wear would become a factor unless you had an entire artillery brigade to work with.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
orrery
|
 |
More Perfect Union
Nov 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
The president declared a cease-fire, and the generals representing the two sides signed a cease-fire.
Then it becomes an issue of formalizing the peace, and when it came up, a month later, to the UN security council, it placed a large number of conditions to make the cease-fire permanent and turn into a true peace.
For you to say there was no cease-fire then is completely incorrect-you keep quoting the president (current), well, he has never claimed there is no cease fire, but that Iraq broke the conditions OF the cease-fire. That assumes there being one, as sort of backed by the simple fact that 99.9% of the time from March 1991 to March 2003 there was no fighting going on: unless you fail to classify that as a ceasation of the firing going on.... |
Did you plain out ignore the article you gave in your defense? The General who signed those documents plainly says that we they had AGREED on the conditions for which a cease-fire will be made and then goes on to say that in for the "cease-fire" to be "approved" would require Iraq to meet all its commitments in the UN Resolutions. Subsequent resolutions state that this event never occured, again, you are mistaking the establishment of objectives for a cease-fire as being a cease-fire in and of itself and that is not a lie that I can allow you to deceive me into believing. You might be able to live a lie, but I will not. The article you posted as evidence contradicts your entire argument and actually supports mine. How you fail to see this continues to baffle me.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Seems to me the issues weren't so much "suffering" as the high degree of lethality, persistency, and decontamination issues, coupled with the likelihood of retaliation in kind and the possibility of loss of control over escalation of NBC conflicts. The banning of hollow point ammo is a one-off aberration, since many "legal" munitions cause worse damage, then and now.. |
As I (and Gepap) have repeatedly pointed out, gas (and especially the gases of the time) does not have a high rate of lethality. Gas was banned because it wounds, not kills.
Britain took 188,706 casualties from gas in WW1. And 8109 deaths.
I doubt somewhat modern concepts of persistency and decontamination were at the forefront of the signatories of the Geneva Protocols.
quote:
Landmines are an entirely different issue - they can be designed to deactivate after set periods of time, or to be made detectable, and there was a strong impetus to ban APMs. DU is toxic, but it is still debatable and scientific evidence is far from clear that DU exposure on the battlefield or in ordnance handling results in higher casualties. The claimed after-effects are also debatable, given the number of other toxic hazards in and around modern battlefields, and limited study. |
Landmines are different; they don't disperse into the atmosphere after being used. If you can make landmines that deactivate or reveal themselves, you could probably accomplish a similar effect for the remnants of a gas that didn't get dispersed, dissolved or broken down by sunlight.
For every Halabja or Bhopal, there are equal examples of areas that have suffered from persistant conventional weapons. I don't consider persistence to be a sole defining trait of WMD. Such a view also seems to suggest that a 'clean' nuclear weapon is less WMD-like than a persistent chemical agent; no matter how massive the nuke.
quote:
Generally, one weapon system is developed because it is more effective than it's predecessors. Gas application in the first world war wasn't much more than field testing of new technology. Certainly there wouldn't have been as many survivors with modern delivery of VX, and the effect on the war would a bit more pronounced. Airplanes and tanks didn't have much effect in WWI either, that sure as hell doesn't mean that the rifle and machine gun still rule the battlefield. |
I disagree about gas being just 'field tested' in WW1. They greatly refined usage of it, and made heavy use of it, and it was still found to be wanting.
Just because aircraft and tanks didn't have much effect, just like gas, doesn't mean that gas is now as potent as aircraft and tanks are now. A modern delivery of VX would have a nasty effect on a WW1 trench; so would modern conventional weapons. Given the unreliability of gases (even VX), I'd rather use conventional weapons; wouldn't you?
quote:
Resistance to new technology, and the lack of time to refine the technology given the dynamic nature of warfare is more of an issue. Airplanes weren't effective either, yet they're now the dominant delivery system for every type of heavy ordnance. |
Again, this is not proof of the effectiveness of chemical weapons.
quote:
In the four year span of WW1, there really wasn't a hell of a lot of time devoted to technological refinement of new weapon systems. |
No.
quote:
Totally different issues - detection of an attack before it occurs is not the same as determination of whether or not hazardous levels of an NBC agent exist in a given location. |
Fair enough. What about the fact that radiation is quite different from chemical detection? Why not lump landmine detection in there as well? After all, you need specialised equipment and people to deal with NBC issues; so it is with landmines.
quote:
Those pieces of metal hauled out of my arms, legs and ass don't seem to have caused permanent organ or genetic damage. |
You're lucky then. Or are you suggesting that one can only acquire permanent afflictions through contact with NBC agents?
quote:
You could probably come up with some cute but functionally meaningless grouping of bacon and eggs with conventional weapons, too. Of course there are some similarities, but not in scale of effect, long term hazards, likelihood of hazards to noncombatants, or potential for retaliatory escalation. |
I don't see how it's functionally meaningless to group weapons which cause explosions and weapons which cause absolutely massive explosions.
At least not any more meaningless than grouping poisoning and asphyxiating weapons with weapons that cause huge explosions and have a side-effect of also causing poisoning.
quote:
If you went for air delivery, a B-52 or two could do it. If you're talking artillery delivery, you're looking at maybe one percent as many fire missions by 155mm arty to do the job more effectively than with conventional HE. |
quote:
Not even close in scale - you're talking 20 to 1 to 200 to 1 depending on the conditions for use of a CW agent, in terms of rounds fired, much longer in terms of duration (resupply of HE rounds and barrel wear would become a factor unless you had an entire artillery brigade to work with. |
Assuming no gas masks.
Given the limited lethality of chemical weapons thus far, I'd like to see how you came by your figures.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patroklos
|
 |
Back home in good ole Norfolk VA
Dec 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
They're banned because they cause unnecessary suffering. Like some types of bullet. I don't think they should be legalized, since the suffering argument is perfectly legit. |
Wrong, they were banned because the caused large scale, indiscriminate, long term suffering.
quote:
What about landmines? They persist. They're designed for it. As well as unexploded stuff generally. What about depleted uranium? It's toxic, and sticks around. |
What is unconventional about the operation of a land mine? Chemical explosive explodes when triggered. And since they are hurting nobody until exploded, and several seconds after that are harmless, very much conventional. And your forgetting that landmines were designed to be KNOWN, so that you can deny the area to an enemy. In military terms there is no way to prepare a mined area large enough to truly be effective. You can defend a village or a town, but not a campaign route or front. Old adage, "mine fields don't work, but mine field signs work great." It seems to me that your main objection to mine fields is their deceptiveness or their capacity for collateral damage. Of course that could be the case of any weapon if used that way. Landmines, by design and doctrine, should be marked, if for no other reason than so you can counterattack! Now booby traps, like bombs disguised as toys, are very unconventional as they are designed solely to kill civilians (with no industrial decay intent) and thus are unconventional, but not WMDs.
Depleted Uranium is not toxic, unless you try and hurt yourself with it. Our troops have been handling the rounds and walking through the ranges it is fired at for years without one case of poisoning. Our troops have also been driving around in large boxes of depleted uranium for years with no problem.
quote:
Patroklos said "it was death on a scale no artillery shell could muster".
I don't see how you can claim that gas was developed because artillery left survivors; if anything, gas left behind more and also didn't damage enemy fortifications. I don't think that it was 'developed' for any reason other than it seemed like a good idea.
It certainly did not have much effect on the outcome of the First World War. |
I launch 155mm HE round which has a kill radius of 30 yards, 5 for entrenched, and 0 for fortified. Effects last for 2 seconds and then the enemy is good to go.
I launch a 155mm CHEM round which has a kill radius of 15 yards from explosives alone. Then the gas kills everything within 20 yards entrenched, and then depending on the gas kills everyone in 20 yards fortified. Remember that most field entrenchments, and even most prepared fortifications have ZERO air filtering. Even if they have gas masks, blistering agents will get you, as almost nobody actually whereas the CHEM warfare outfits (we don't even have enough). This is actually better because now your enemy has do deal with wounded. And then the chemicals stay active for several hours to days, maiming enemies or at least denying them the battle space. Plus the hysteria.
Round for round, barrage for barrage (conventional artillery should not be considered by round either as IT was not designed that way) CHEM rounds win. I bombard the Seelow Heights with 10,000 arty tubes of HE, or I do it with HE with chemicals. It isn't a hard concept to grasp.
As for the Great War, I would suspect that since chemical weapons made maybe .001 percent of the munitions used in the war, you need to be a little more relative with your comparisons to artillery and machine guns.
And the final breakthroughs had nothing to do with "short artillery barrages that suddenly stopped." They did that every day of the war, which was punctuated by the huge inferno barrages. The Germans starved to death from the blockade. Great War 101!
quote:
I happen to believe that the frequency of weapons systems used might have had something to do with their usefulness, especially as the war dragged on (and the primitive tactics used initially gave way to more advanced ones). Gas wasn't very effective; that's the simplest explanation. |
This attitude is not surprising considering the level of competence you have displayed concerning weapons systems in this thread. The frequency of use depends more on ease of production, what you already have in stock, and what your current military doctrine is designed to accommodate. WWI chem weapons fit none of those categories. Why did the Allies build gay Shermans when they knew they were crap instead of the 76mm version/Firefly? Because they hadn't learned yet. Not to mention the problem with WWI gas wasn't the gas, but rather the delivery vehicle (wind that changes direction, and artillery that buries itself in the mud). Atmosphere burst was used later, but that isn't the real reason for the scarcity of use.
The real reason is the weapons appalled both sides because of their effectiveness, and what they did to achieve it. Or in other words because it was so UNCOVENTIONAL!!!
quote:
Anyway, suppose I wanted to group together nukes with conventional weapons. I could just as quickly cobble together a short list of similarities: Creates heat, destroys buildings, delivered in the same basic manner as conventional weapons. |
You could, but please salvage some of your creditability by not.
quote:
Patroklos said that in order to use chemical weapons effectively, you'd need to use thousands of gallons of it. That entails quite a few planes, does it not? |
Who said anything about planes? The best way would be to use a combo of planes, artillery (cover a huge portion of the border) and cruise missiles. And you would use intermediates like rivers and ground water to do the real work. Case in point, Soviet doctrine was to destroy, say, Germany with chems. While the same exertion with conventional weapons would destroy, say, Hamburg. That of course is the basic gist of WMDs, minimum or equal investment in resources for 100x the destruction. Thousands (to be fair actually ten of thousands) of gallons of VX to neutralize Germany, or hundreds of thousands of tons of HE to level Hamburg? Do your cost benefit analysis.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
|
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Wrong, they were banned because the caused large scale, indiscriminate, long term suffering. |
Suffering; not many deaths though. They don't kill cleanly like conventional weapons.
Landmines:
You're outlining the best possible use of mines; I could equally argue for a very strictly controlled use of chemical weapons.
Mines are not always marked, sometimes no-one knows where they are. They do not always have a limited life either. They stay in the ground and cause injuries and deaths for years. They cause 'large scale, indiscriminate and long term suffering'.
What's the effective difference between a child born without a leg because of toxic after-effects of chemical weapons, and a child that loses a leg because of a landmine?
quote:
Depleted Uranium is not toxic, unless you try and hurt yourself with it. Our troops have been handling the rounds and walking through the ranges it is fired at for years without one case of poisoning. Our troops have also been driving around in large boxes of depleted uranium for years with no problem. |
It's a heavy metal. It's rougly as toxic as lead, being fairly safe until it gets smashed into powder and seeps into the water table.
Patroklos' comparison between chemical and explosive shells:
I think you are wrong in assuming that the gas will kill everyone within a 20 yard radius. Even the best gas takes some time to work (assuming that they don't have gas masks, chem suits or antidotes), and in that time, the gas will be constantly dispersing. The soldiers are not going to stand there and get poisoned either; they'll try to find an area with clearer air.
The low death rates from gas in WW1 also cast doubt on your view of the efficiency of chemical weapons.
If gas was so fantastically powerful as you claim, there's no way in hell that it wouldn't be in common use by most armies in the world.
quote:
As for the Great War, I would suspect that since chemical weapons made maybe .001 percent of the munitions used in the war, you need to be a little more relative with your comparisons to artillery and machine guns. |
You've just made that percentage up, leading me to doubt the accuracy of your comparison even more. Usage of gas climbed during the whole war, and constituted a considerable portion of all munitions used.
The casualty/death ratios of gas speak for themselves; Germany had 200,000 men injured by gas, and 9000 killed. There must have been a bit more than a 1/100000 ratio for that number of men to have been injured by gas.
quote:
And the final breakthroughs had nothing to do with "short artillery barrages that suddenly stopped." They did that every day of the war, which was punctuated by the huge inferno barrages. The Germans starved to death from the blockade. Great War 101! |
There weren't any final breakthroughs. Breakthroughs were virtually impossible given the technological conditions of the time. The Germans were pushed back along a wide front. The blockade was certainly important, but creeping barrage and other artillery doctrines were vital in forcing the Germans back. There's a huge difference between the artillery at the start and artillery at the end of the war.
quote:
This attitude is not surprising considering the level of competence you have displayed concerning weapons systems in this thread. The frequency of use depends more on ease of production, what you already have in stock, and what your current military doctrine is designed to accommodate. WWI chem weapons fit none of those categories. Why did the Allies build gay Shermans when they knew they were crap instead of the 76mm version/Firefly? Because they hadn't learned yet. Not to mention the problem with WWI gas wasn't the gas, but rather the delivery vehicle (wind that changes direction, and artillery that buries itself in the mud). Atmosphere burst was used later, but that isn't the real reason for the scarcity of use. |
So gas wasn't used to great effect because they didn't have the production facilities or the doctrinal leanings? If only they'd had the doctrine and supplies, gas would have ratcheted up millions of victims, as opposed to 80,000. Sorry, but I don't believe you for a second.
The combatants ended the war with completely different doctrines and production facilities from those they'd started with. If they were willing to use tanks, planes, submarines, flamethrowers, stormtroops, zeppelins and creeping barrage, they would hardly have baulked at using gas. Of course, they didn't. They used a lot of gas, they had the production facilities, and they had the doctrines. And gas was not particularly effective, as evidenced by the low death rates.
quote:
The real reason is the weapons appalled both sides because of their effectiveness, and what they did to achieve it. Or in other words because it was so UNCOVENTIONAL!!! |
Have you got the slightest evidence for that assertion? The fact that gas was not nearly as effective as you say, as well as the fact that both sides used it with gusto, suggests otherwise.
They used all sorts of unconventional weapons, by the standards of the time. Aerial bombardment, flamethrowers, submarines. Hell, the naval blockade against Germany was a violation of the rules of war.
If gas was anywhere near where as effective as you suggest, they'd have been absolutely delighted.
quote:
You could, but please salvage some of your creditability by not. |
Oh please. I don't consider propping up an obviously bogus category (WMD) by inventing another dodgy category (unconventional weapons) to be very credible. The fact is, that all weapons were once unconventional. If all you've ever known is warfare on the ground or on the sea, how unconventional must the first planes and submarines have seemed?
If gas is ever used extensively in war, it will eventually become conventional as well.
quote:
Who said anything about planes? The best way would be to use a combo of planes, artillery (cover a huge portion of the border) and cruise missiles. And you would use intermediates like rivers and ground water to do the real work. Case in point, Soviet doctrine was to destroy, say, Germany with chems. While the same exertion with conventional weapons would destroy, say, Hamburg. That of course is the basic gist of WMDs, minimum or equal investment in resources for 100x the destruction. Thousands (to be fair actually ten of thousands) of gallons of VX to neutralize Germany, or hundreds of thousands of tons of HE to level Hamburg? Do your cost benefit analysis. |
Ten thousand gallons of VX isn't going to neutralise Germany. That's one gallon for 7800 people; a good sized town. A single gallon isn't going to do much to it. Especially when the infrastructure is largely intact, and countermeasures can be taken and antidotes administered. Additionally, mild and moderate exposure to VX can usually be recovered from completely.
Using rivers and ground water to spread VX is an incredibly slow method of attacking; compounded by the fact that VX does not mix easily with water.
At least one hundred thousand tons of chemical weapons were used in WW1; and they didn't come anywhere near to 'neutralising' anything.
Saddam pounded Halabja with chemical weapons for 3 days, killing 5000 people. Bad, but no worse than one would expect had his planes been carrying high explosives. Indeed, most of the genocide of the Kurds was carried out by 'conventional' means.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
The wound gas cause especial mustard gas which burn the inside of lung lineing can cause you to get repeated thought out your live pneumonia which can kill you even today. Plus they now know mustard gas can weaken your immusion system like AIDS does. The burn on your skins can take many month to heal with great pain those burn cause.
I once make than acting school superiten look like than than total idiot. We where running than chemictry demo for elemeant school children. The teacher running it ask me to get the new steelwool i put away the previous day. The new steelwool was cover with than greenish rust, I show it to the teach who told me to get the new steel wool, not the old one. I ask him to some in to the store room he saw the old steelwool redish in color with the new steelwool greening in color next to than tank of chiloine gas that was cover in one place with rust than a tiny opening. He went to thew acting super to ask in to eval the building which he refuse to do. So i act on my own by pressing the firealarm. The teacher make than primate gasmask with certain chemical rag around my mounth and nose. The acting super who didnot like me told me I will be arrest for pressing the firealarm. I on acart carry the tank of compress chiloine gas out of the builting where the police and fire units where waiting. The fire department gave me pure oxygen from than tank to beathin. The police lietenant who examine the bottle was in the chemical corp call the acting super than total idiot for not ordering the builting eval and that he wasnot arresting me for press the fire alarm as the hole was getting bigger and it anybody was likely to be arrest was he the super.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
21-05-2004 01:57
|