A click-bait title, yes. But I want to get an opinion on something.

As soldiers, cadets, veterans, or arm-chair-generals: what would it take for you to produce and use Chlorine Gas (Or any crude chemical device) if the time became desperate enough.

None of us, I would hope regardless of our association in the military, have used/been exposed to a gas attack ala those seen in the First World War. There's a lot of written accounts luckily describing its horrors and uses, not to mention some old grainy photos showing it, that capture an entire generation's aversion to it.

There's a generational disconnect, we've only ever seen it on the news (hopefully) or read it in books. Obviously, after it's first deployment the characters in a story probably wouldn't use it again. Regardless of how I'm trying to spin it, I'm trying to spin it for fiction: it's an awful weapon that should never be used.

This is more of a rant or an open forum. But, it's not hard in theory to make chlorine gas. What circumstances do you think a MiE fic could spiral to the point that human characters are willing to use gas? Would it be justifiable to them because it's just 'easier'? Or maybe they over-estimate it's actual effectiveness due to its cultural perception?

I don't know, let's talk about chemical weapons in Equestria.

5952307 There are far more effective weapons than chemical ones. The real advantage of chemical weapons is that, when employed against civilians (as we saw in Northern Iraq under Hussein, and a number of other dictators through the last century or so), it is effective for crushing dissident. In the military, anyone who might be exposed to gas is issued a mask and how to put it on and use it is covered in most western nation's basic training.

In terms of when I would be willing to use it in combat; area denial on a retreat. If my enemy doesn't have effective counter-measures either readily available, or at all. Then I would employ it on the retreat out of an area that's been evacuated of civilians and as my last troops pulled out. It would only last a few hours and the enemy forces might go around it, but it still could buy me time and in a retreat situation, that's what matters.

5952321

No disagreement with you there in regards to its effectiveness. It's more of a terror weapon than anything else. I do like your idea of the area of denial weapon. At least in its employment, seems pretty simple in retrospect but I hadn't thought about that! Thank you!

5952330 No problem.

relevant blog

So...needless to say, chemical weapons are bad. Of the WMD options, they also are most convenient to use. They aren't quite as taboo as nuclear, and also don't destroy infrastructure. Chems are fast-acting, unlike biological weapons.

Poison gas is notoriously fickle. Especially against an enemy that can control the weather and winds. Gasses are generally called nonpersistent chemical weapons - meaning they don't hang around very long. A persistent chemical weapon that sticks to things would be preferable. Persistent chems include things like VX, which can hang around for months if not cleaned up.

As the leader of a country, when would I personally consider using chemical weapons? If the very existence of the country was threatened. At that point, all bets are off. In this context, we can look at North Korea. If military action began against NK, Kim Jong Un likely knows or believes that it can only end with him out of power. Unfortunately, this means any Korean War II would likely involve NK's large chemweapon reserves.

5952321 Agreed on retreat area denial. You might even be able to spin it so that it isn't against international conventions because you're using it on your own territory.

5952398 The can also be created in very large quantities, without a lot of sophisticated equipment (I created chlorine gas in the chem lab at school and I did it before I was old enough to buy booze, so... not terribly complex).

As for my point, the non-persistency is an issue, but, like I mentioned in my post, it doesn't need to stick around for too long, just enough to buy me some time. As for international conventions, it is a non-discrimanatory weapon and it is still a chemical weapon, so it depends on if they want to slap you for it, or if they like you (if you're the daesh, they'd add it to the list of charges, if you're working with the coalition, probably not).

5952307
I realized that it could also be employed offensively as a cover for troops who have equipment to approach the enemy with less resistance. I personally wouldn't do that, but there are some nations (not naming any *cough* DPRK *cough*) that I wouldn't put that past them to do.

What about Non-Lethal gas? Paralysis, Sleep/Knock-Out?

6082233
I can't imagine it'd have the same effect. Stuff like the gas used in surgery needs a dedicated anesthesiologist and you need a mask pumping it into your face. Plus said anesthesiologist stays there to ensure they don't wake up during surgery, so at best you'd have a handful of soldiers pass out and wake up in like a minute, maybe. That's assuming it has any effect, or that they don't have gas masks, or that the anesthesia is in a low-lying heavy kind of gas that stays close to the ground and doesn't just drift off into the air.

5952307

As soldiers, cadets, veterans, or arm-chair-generals: what would it take for you to produce and use Chlorine Gas

If I thought it would help me win. "Desperation" or no, it is a weapon in the arsenal to be used under the right (hypothetical) circumstances. These circumstances are rare because, as noted previously, they aren't terribly effective in most settings.

6082249

These circumstances are rare because, as noted previously, they aren't terribly effective in most settings.

Tell that to the Syrian civilians

6082256
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights puts the current death toll at roughly 400,000 killed since 2011.

An article from The Guardian identified the death toll of Syrian chemical weapons to be roughly 1,500 (as of one year ago). While that number has absolutely climbed since then, they remain a tiny margin of the total deaths compared to West-Friendly means of butchery. The cost to produce the chemical weapons was high, international condemnation (for what it's worth) was high, and the strikes ultimately provoked (half-assed, but real) American retaliation. In exchange, Assad used a weapon that failed to effectively win the war for him or even provide a notable strategic advantage.

Anything else?

6082336
Beyond that that's rather lopsided in numbers due to him not using chemical weapons nearly as much as conventional weapons and the incompetence of the users. International condemnation is pretty pointless since few nations liked Assad all that much to begin with and they won't actually do much of anything, especially seeing as how the 'half-assed' American strike was the only actual retaliation for his use of chemical weapons. That's not to mention Assad's winning the war regardless.

6082370
And this disputes my opinion chemical weapons are not effective in most circumstances because...?

6082391
Because it wasn't meant to? It's a restating of what 5952321 mentioned in their usage against civilians, since you felt like answering the rather old OP's question, which was already answered in it's first reply, rather than the idea posted an hour ago.

6082409

Because it wasn't meant to?

Your post was a reply to me, quoted me, and attempted to undercut me. And now, faced with rebuttal, you claim it was not aimed at me.

Just... try to consider your posts more carefully in the future. Please.

6082446
Don't hold yourself as a victim mate, if I wanted to rebuke you I'd actually do it; there's a reason I said Syrian civilians rather than Syrians or Syrian soldiers; at best you can say it was a misunderstanding.

Like I said, it's a restatement of the first reply concerning gas' use on civilians, the one that answered the question asked.

And 'try to consider your post more better in the future'? Mate you're not the smarter, better educated man you seem to think. You replied to an old post with nothing new, nor is it held in some higher margin than anyone else's. You gave an uninovative view on an old, answered question and are freaked out when you think I'm coming after you, and saying I'm backtracking when I didn't disagree with the main point and even pointed out that my response didn't contradict it.

You're not the wise intellectual with a cherished view mate, and not everyone's out to beat you down, you're just here like the rest of us.

6082463
Jeeze, that escalated quickly.

6083425

I'm sorry that happened.