Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Downwinder

(12,869 posts)
22. Chemical weapons are unreliable. They go where the wind sends them.
Tue Aug 27, 2013, 06:38 PM
Aug 2013

You might be aiming at an enemy and get your own troops.

Just to comment: The Nazis had no problem using them on civilians. NutmegYankee Aug 2013 #1
They didn't use them on the Russians or Poles, who had no air force and geek tragedy Aug 2013 #3
The Russians took tons of prisoners on the eastern front. NutmegYankee Aug 2013 #6
how many were allowed to survive? nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #14
For German POWs held by the Soviet Union, about 2.4 million went home by 1950 NutmegYankee Aug 2013 #16
thx nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #17
If one country busted them out against the other major powers in WWII, everyone would Posteritatis Aug 2013 #11
I think that back in WWI PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #2
They were only tactically effective a handful of times, actually Posteritatis Aug 2013 #8
Good info. PowerToThePeople Aug 2013 #12
The short version is it's pretty hard to overestimate how stupid they were, for sure Posteritatis Aug 2013 #13
World War I blueridge3210 Aug 2013 #34
An internatonal conferance on the Conventons of war should be convened ... Agnosticsherbet Aug 2013 #4
There are international treaties banning land mines and cluster munitions. geek tragedy Aug 2013 #5
And Bush, and Clinton, and Reagan. Agnosticsherbet Aug 2013 #9
Treaties are fine, but who is going to enforce them and how. Downwinder Aug 2013 #7
Times change Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #10
you think chemical weapons were banned because they were too effective? nt geek tragedy Aug 2013 #15
Yes they were very efficient in WWI Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #18
um geek tragedy Aug 2013 #19
Disagree with that heavily Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #24
Many people disagree with facts. Chemical weapons caused a tiny fraction of the war's casualties. nt Posteritatis Aug 2013 #26
Chemical weapons were not used at the onset of WWI Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #30
Gas shells were one quarter of all shells fired, and caused four percent of the casualties. (nt) Posteritatis Aug 2013 #32
The problem is that this is very a conservative estimate of casualties by chemical weapons Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #33
Chemical weapons are unreliable. They go where the wind sends them. Downwinder Aug 2013 #22
Which often happened. Chem weapons were probably the *least* effective weapons of that war. (nt) Posteritatis Aug 2013 #23
Trenches were not that close of proximity Harmony Blue Aug 2013 #25
ALL weapons of war should be banned, permanently. 99Forever Aug 2013 #20
People arguing that use of chemical weapons is "the same" as use of other weapons are simply foolish alcibiades_mystery Aug 2013 #21
+1 n/t FSogol Aug 2013 #27
Would they also say then that the use of Nuclear weapons is "the same"? VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #28
If politically palatable, probably Posteritatis Aug 2013 #29
**facepalm** VanillaRhapsody Aug 2013 #31
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Were the drafters of inte...»Reply #22