Why is the subject of Nerve Gas use, forbidden?

11/05/2001 | MarketR

[MarketR]

Nerve gas....There, I said it!

We have been cruelly attacked both on 9/11 and subsequently with a weapon of mass destruction, aka Anthrax.

Why is it that everytime I bring up the use of our stockpiles of nerve gas on the entrenched Taliban, people keep telling me it's not the "American" way. ( they have advocated the use of tactical nukes, however...go figure?)

Excuse me, but in war you play to WIN, not to play fair. If we want to play fair, then let's strip our solders, give them robes, a rifle and a sword and point them in the general direction of the front lines.

The gas sinks, going down into the h*ll holes where these guys are waiting, and will dissapate in a few days so we can go in and retreive any intellegence we need - or figure who we just took out.

Plus, I can't think of a more terrifying weapon at our disposal than the VX gas. You want this to be over fast...Terror counters terror!

Blast away... I've been getting it for days.

[error99]

Or even a little BZ gas would be cool...

[Born to Conserve]

Well, It's against international law for one.

O'course if yer fer tit fer tat, go fer it!

[MarketR]

Have you heard anyone mention this?

I'm at a loss.

[c-five]

IMO, it's not necessary. Not the tool for the job. It can cause problems you don't want downwind. Butane is heavier than air too, and can be made to dissipate very quickly and with spectacular effect when mixed with air in a confined space.

[MarketR]

Not the tool for the job. It can cause problems you don't want downwind. Butane is heavier than air too, and can be made to dissipate very quickly and with spectacular effect when mixed with air in a confined space.

Well, at least an educated opinion!

Downwind could be a problem, and so could the cold weather as it tends to be active longer in the cold, but you have got to admit, it is truly a terror weapon.

I believe that it can be effectively used, as long as the proper precautions are taken.

This is as much a war of breaking will as providing so awesome a retribution that no one would dare think again about attacking the US.

In a war with terrorists, our ONLY defense is a terrifying offense.

[Poohbah]

BZ was tried in 'Nam.

Essentially, BZ was an aerosolized form of LSD.

The US Army found out that when you dosed people who were (a) scared to death and (b) armed to the teeth, you were going to have PHUN dealing with the ensuing craziness.

[danielobvt]

Accuracy. Compared to the spread of our conventional weapons, these things are covering a huge area. Collateral damage bad!
Plus we are better than them. We understand the concept of restraint. These bad guys would use these weapons if they could. We don't use them even though we could.

[WOSG]

Right. Bio and chemical warfare lacks any ability for precision. With our intellingent munitions, we can go after the bad guys with minimum collateral damage. As for getting the bad guys in bunkers, it seems we have the tools - big bad-ass bombs.

IMHO using nukes, gas or anything like that is un-necessary and quite bad both for collateral damage potential and therefor PR.

[Nateman]

This game was played in World War one. The results were so horrible that both sides wanted to discontinue its use. Its better to have a bunch in reserve to use in case they use it first. If the initiating side knows you got more and better stuff  ready to use they realize that using it just hands you an advantage that your side was otherwise unwilling to use.

If we find that Bin Laden is responsible for the Anthrax attacks, then its time to use that on his people right back. In the meanwhile we should make sure we have a bunch of the weaponized stuff ready to use.

[MarketR]

I'm with you on the collateral damage. And, as accuracy is a problem, I agree with not using this in any situation...but,

As I understand the present situation, most of the cave / bunkers, Osama and his Taliban friends are probably hiding in are way away from anything else northeast of Kandahar. One shot, laser guided right down the entrance, is what would be needed.

Here's the thing, I don't think these A%%#oles deserve a shot at even one more American. Not one! And, unfortunately, that is where we are now heading.

[ExSoldier]

I have to agree with c-five. Our use of nerve agent is counter-productive in this case. You want a terrifying offense? Drop a neutron warhead...vaporize all living flesh, then, in two days walk in and just take over. Nerve agent is difficult to dispense with any sort of practical accuracy and puts friendly (indigenious anti-Taliban forces) guerillas at risk.

Then there are the images of horribly dying BABIES that will air 'round the world...until even our own populace screams bloody murder. Hey, at least with the neutron nuke...it gets rid of the evidence...even the dead babies!

[ChemistCat]

Unnecessarily sloppy; too dependent upon chaotic variables, and will provoke worldwide disapproval WAAAAY out of proportion to how effective it would be. Nerve gas couldn't accomplish anything, really, that more conventional stuff can't do better. When we know where Bin Laden and all his blood kin and compatriots are, I'm for the use of burrowing nukes. I would like to see some palaces in Iraq have sudden, catastrophic foundation damage, as well.

[null and void]

Worst case: We capture Osama - Numerous terroriast acts to get him released. No guarantee of conviction, given the degraded state of US jurisprudence.

2nd Worst case: We kill Osama. - Makes him a martyr.

3rd worst case: The Taliban kills Osama - Still a martyr, but anger is not as directly focused on the US.

Best case (IMHO) We flatten Afghanistan, and Osama "escapes"...
We hear that he is in Iraq. Flatten Iraq, Osama "escapes"...
We hear he is in Lybia. Flatten Lybia, Osama "escapes"...
Repeat as needed until all terror exporting countries stop...

[havoc1us]

Remember, Bush said a few days post 9/11, that the ensuing battles *may or may not* have a conventional component, and that there were going to be covert operations that remain secret, even in success. If it's an appropriate tool for a particular job, I would hope he would authorize the military to use this, one of "all means available, any means necessary" to win this one. I wouldn't be surprised to hear rumors being discredited by the Administration about Al-quieda soldiers writhing in the caves like bugs on RAID, and big bright flashes of light in the desert. ;-). Just an opinion.

[MarketR]

Drop a neutron warhead...vaporize all living flesh, then, in two days walk in and just take over.

I thought that neutron weapons just emitted extreme amounts of high speed neutrons which destroyed DNA of living tissues within a certain circumference around them. This leads to radiation deaths in these victims within a few hours or days, but no structural damage to buildings or other infrastructure.
No burning flesh and certainly no penetration into underground caverns as the high speed neutrons lose their effect within a certain amount of feet of solid materials. i.e. brick, concrete, granite.

Isn't this correct?

[Cicero]

Nerve gas is relatively cheap and easy to make. A lot of small third-world nations have it. So the last thing we need is to break the general agreement against poison gas that has prevailed, with a few dishonorable exceptions, since the end of the First World War.

The same applies to nuclear weapons. We should not use them lightly, but reserve them as a response for a major chemical, biological, or nuclear attack on us.

It's not in our national interest to break the taboo against poison gas, because we have much more to lose by it than most of our potential opponents.

[womanvet]

Without discussing the tactical difficulties of using chemicals such as gas, which is so dependent on weather, if I did plan to use nerve gas, I would not broadcast that news to anyone -- not even legislators or governors, all of whom have been known to leak secrets to Eisner's and Turner's Islamic News Networks.

And, considering the political problems that might arise, if I did use such weapons, I would definitely deny any knowledge of it, and point the finger of blame at right-wing midwestern pagan talk-show listeners...

[ExSoldier]

I don't think so...according to my Father-in-Law, who holds a Ph.d in Nuclear Physics and used to be in charge of a nuclear power plant prior to his retirement, a neutron weapon will send radiation clear through the earth, but he's not sure at what depth it would no longer be fatal to humans. Certainly many times the size of Mt. Everest--so there is no mountain in Afghanistan that presents a problem for this sort of device.

You are correct in saying it does not harm structures, but dad says it would indeed vaporize all living tissue; animal or human. But remember, this guy IS approaching the age of 80. Still, he's pretty sharp. In a crunch, I'd put my $$$ on the family racehorse as it pertains to THIS issue.