BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

Poco Deplorevole

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 00:01:03 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 09 Apr 2017 16:16:10 -0400, Poco Deplorevole
wrote:

I've already stated it was used as a weapon, but not as a 'chemical weapon'. As stated above, it was
an incendiary weapon. Napalm is not windborn as is mustard gas and sarin and most other 'chemical'
weapons. It's the windborn trait that makes chemical weapons so effective against large numbers of
people at a very small cost.

Actually, as a military weapon, the experience in WWI proved gas
wasn't really that effective. There were a number of cases where the
wind shifted a little and they ended up gassing themselves.
It is, at best, a terror weapon and that is why it was easy to get it
banned in 1925.

WW1 saw a lot of trench warfare where the trenches were pretty close. As the gasses were windborn,
you're correct - a shift in the wind can cause havoc. According to Wiki, gas in WW1 did not cause a
great number of fatalities, but...

"The killing capacity of gas was limited, with only about 90 thousand fatalities from a total of
some 1.2 million casualties caused by gas attacks."

Casualties take more soldiers out of action than fatalities.

Gas is especially effective against large masses of soldiers (or civilians) or in cities where it's
windborn properties take it into, over and around buildings. One chemical artillery round or bomb
can cover a lot of area and cause a lot of casualties.

For the life of me, though, I can't understand Assad's reason for using it, unless it's simply to
scare the rebels into inaction.