What are the advantages of chemical weapons over explosives?
What are the advantages of chemical weapons over explosives?
CW crosses a red line. If you want to stir the pot and create a major incident you would go that direction. This isn’t just about Syria. Russia wants turmoil in the west. KGB Vlad knows when he snaps his fingers that defenders of fascist Russia will happily carry his water and cause political conflict.
None.
Minimal damage to infrastructure. Like an ER bomb with different decon required.
*** What are the advantages of chemical weapons over explosives? ***
More Opportunities for the “White Helmets” to display their acting skills in pursuit of an Oscar?
#13 re what are the advantages of chemical weapons over explosives?
Chemical weapons do the following:
1. Kill concentrations of troops, people, animals, etc.
2. Are inexpensive to make (usual delivery is by artillery shell, chemical mortar or bombs).
3. Some chemical gases are “persistent” gases that remain active in the area they were used, for a long time. Makes the whole area contaminated and unusable.
4. Can cover a large area depending on the means of dispersal. Explosive bombs usually only damage a limited area (re explosive radius/radiating point to the end of its effectiveness). Gases continue to disperse until they lose velocity and then can settle down and still remain active on the ground, in caves, basements, etc.
5. Chemical weapons are easy to transport by truck or plane.
6. Most semi-military and civilian groups have no defenses against them.
My father was in the Chemical Warfare Service during WW2, working on the 4.2” Chemical Mortar (WP). It was the one smaller artillery weapon that the Germans feared the most and it broke the German defense lines at the German border with Belgium/France.
The Soviets have always had a major CBW program since at least the 50’s, reportedly at hidden sites in Siberia as well as scattered around the Soviet Union.
Saddam had a limited CW program as did the Egyptians (used in Yemen in planes flown by Soviet pilots), Red China (extent of program unknown), possibly No. Korea (logical), and perhaps Cuba (for use in Africa - Angola, 1974-75), etc.
As I have mentioned before, my son’s unit in Iraq captured Soviet Bloc green brand new CBW combat suits east of Hindaya on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. You didn’t see that reported in almost any newspaper other than what I might have written (in several of my columns back in 2003), or in an occasional military publication article.
The Russians have used Thermobaric fuel bombs against the Ukrainians with terrible effect (it burns the soldiers alive like napalm). If you want to see what a fuel bomb is supposed to look like, see the Sylvester Stallone film “Rambo” about Vietnam (though the NVN didn’t have them during the war that I know of).
The Syrians are dropping these fuel bombs from helicopters and I’ve seen the films of them doing so.
Hope this helps to answer your inquiry.
Much cheaper to produce, disperse,
and can kill over a much larger
area. Accuracy in hitting the
target is reduced as long as the
intended victims are downwind of
where the chemicals are dispersed.
Also, someone has to “clean up”,
and disposal (preferred method is
digging a trench to bury) is more
expedient when the bodies are whole.
Much easier to hide the atrocity.
We do not know who really used this crap against civilians.
“What are the advantages of chemical weapons over explosives?”
They give corrupt politicians a pretext for their stances.
Fear factor.