Reply #11: Civilians are the ideal target of Chemical Weapons [View All]

[happyslug]

Chemical Weapons work best against people who have absolutely no defense against the Weapon. Thus Civilians have often been the targets of Chemical Warfare (For example when the Italians used Chemicals against the Ethiopians in 1936).

Against troops (or even civilians) with minimal protection (Basically only a gas mask), the effectiveness of Chemicals drop. The drop is substantial. The best way to show the extent of the drop in effectiveness is that if you have a choice between using chemicals against troops armed with just masks (No protective suits and the troops are carrying the masks not wearing the masks) and conventional high explosives against the same troops. Using the High Explosives would cause more damage.

In planning warfare since WWI (When Chemicals were first used in the modern era) the above fact is the main reason chemicals are not used. Even the most minimal protection lowers the effectiveness of Chemical weapons. The main reasons why Chemicals are used is either to force the other side into their Chemical suits (Thus restricting their activities), or eliminating unprotected people (Mostly Civilians but can also be troops).

Now Chemicals can be effective but only against entrenched troops whose maneuverability is other wise restricted. For example Omar Bradly commented that had the Germans used Chemicals on Omaha Beach on D-day we would have lost the beachhead. Our troops were already pinned to a restricted area, the Germans had protection against chemicals in their entrenchments, our troops would have been massacred. Similarly when the Germans planned to storm Leningrad (Before and now St. Petersburg's) during WWII, the Germans planned to use Chemicals to wipe out the trenches surrounding the City (knowing this will also kill most of the Civilians in the City). The Germans knew they would have the ability to maneuver and thus avoid the Chemicals (Mostly by waiting for the chemicals to dissipate), while the Russians would have to withstand the chemical attack so to be able to defend against the subsequent infantry Attack. The Russians by having their backs against the wall of Leningrad had no place to maneuver to avoid the effects of the Chemicals.

Chemical Warfare is useless against an enemy who can maneuver and thus avoid the Chemicals. Chemical Warfare is useless against an enemy who can close in with you before you can detect him, (as in the Vietcong during the Vietnam War). Chemical Warfare is almost as useless against an enemy who has "Gas masks" even if the masks are old and out of date (Unless you can restrict the maneuverability of those troops by some other means).

Given the nature of the Present Iraqi War I doubt the US is using Chemicals. The Resistance movement has never stood and fought (and thus opening themselves up to a sustain attack). The Resistance groups have continue to fight everywhere and no where. Unless the US decides to eliminate the "Sea" the Guerrillas "Fish" is living in, chemical warfare is useless.

For you people who do not what I mean by "Fish" and "Sea", that is to the comment of Mao, who said a Guerrilla must be like a Fish is a Sea of supporters. The Fish must swim in that sea, he can not survive without that sea. What I meant by the US eliminating the Sea is to eliminate the supporters of the Guerrillas. One way is to Gas areas of Support as Saddam allegedly did. Just eliminate the "Sea" by killing everyone off. Hopefully the US will not adopt such a policy but other countries have done it is the past (and the US practices it via Concentration Camps during the Civil War).