How will the use of chemical weapons effect the current stalemate now that the gloves are off
How will the use of chemical weapons effect the current stalemate now that the gloves are off
How will the use of chemical weapons effect the current stalemate now that the gloves are off
gloves aren't truly off until the secret army of bears on unicycles is deployed
Bazinga
Not much. Ukraine will just get protective equipment and international community will probably close their eyes if ukraine decides to use their own for breaching russian lines.
To be fair, "Russians gas their own defensive lines" is some pretty air tight plausible deniability.
>implying anyone will even care enough to look into it
Guess the russian defenses weren't so air tight.
>Guess the russian defenses weren't so air tight.
CARLOS
Private Carlos is fishing for potato duty with that one.
Carlovich you little shit I will rape you and then beat the life out of you.
None cares where Russians use chemical warfare, if they use it it's enough
they wouldn't even need to defend it, Russia would quickly make up an excuse for them as to why the thousands of dead Russians don't matter.
>xaxaxa stoopid Ukronazis, that was a prisoner trench full of Ukrainians!
Now that you mention this, what came out of thst shot-down ”””POW””” plane?
I'm assuming literally nothing, since nobody believes Russia and Russia also doesn't care if anybody believes them and is only lying out of compulsion at this point. I doubt they even understand why they lie about everything, just that it's important that they do.
POWs were a quick lie to keep doubt in air until the case gets out of the headlines and can be memoryholed. You can bet that if Russia could prove that the plane carried POWs, they would have showered the evidence around.
Nobody will say shit if you retaliate to chemical attacks with chemical attacks of your own. Illegal or not, that's just common sense if they get serious enough.
From what I understand the Russians used teargas typically used by Police. I guess that is technically a chemical weapon, but everyone is acting they're breaking out the Zyklon B. The simple solution is issuing gas masks.
tear gas has never been considered a chemical weapons, they used it early in ww1 and no one cried about it nor did they considered inhumaned unlike chlorine gas which herald a new era in actual proper chemical warfare
>nor did they considered inhumaned unlike chlorine gas which herald a new era in actual proper chemical warfare
holy frick get out
shut up Black person, if you had any business in a chemical warfare thread you'd know tear gas was the first chemical weapon used in ww1 and that no one cared about it since it wasn't "poison gas"
Black folk like you are the cancer that is killing /k/
i was referencing your Black person-tier ESL spelling actually, if you weren't a thirdie you'd have picked up on that fact
thanks for confirming lol.
and no one cares about people using tear gas, they use it on hippies all the time. i want them to roll out the real spicy stuff like sarin.
Not him but how is she an ESL?
If you weren't an actual moron you'd know that the use of tear gas in warfare has been banned since the Geneva Protocol of 1925 as it's an asphyxiation agent.
Anon, do you know where you are?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907
>(IV,2): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Projectiles with the Sole Object to Spread Asphyxiating Poisonous Gases
This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using projectiles "the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases".
Cool now bring up the part where the powers of ww1 complained about its usage in the early war.
wish i had scrolled down so i could you in this reply
oh yeah, im sure you know a looooot about chemical warfare from what you read on wikipedia, mhm. frickin stupid moron. you are not smart. cope.
Is this AI slop?
reverse search, ever heard of it Black person? It's from a 2018 metal album cover, too old to be AI. The pic is mostly fake, could be real but highly unlikely.
Nope
>NOOT NOOT
What movie is this?
RRR
Neat, thanks.
It is avery long and wild movie and thoroughly Indian but it's a fun watch
Isn't the whole movie just anti-white propaganda?
They're using the stronger stuff. Military grade teargas, basically. The stuff that makes you vomit profusely.
The reason it was so popular in ww1 was that it was fine enough to go through gas masks and forced people to take them off our else they'd drown in their vomit, so they could then use stronger agents
It is. But so over the top with everything including their depiction how brits are le bad, that you can unironically enjoy it as all of it is hard to be taken seriously.
Who cares, it's an insane ride and it could advocate for white genocide for all I care
you are a moron.
the kind of gas russia is using now is the kind that had small enough particles to infiltrate masks at the time of ww1, which would compel them to take the mask off, and since this gas was usually used in tandem with mustard gas or something more lethal - theyd take their mask off and choke on the mustard gas. now russia isnt smart like that so they probably will stick to using the tear gas as is, but its still banned even alone because of how it was used before.
now go choke on some borscht vlad.
Man, these glavset wienerlets are monitoring the board 24/7.
Both are equally chemicals weapons and against the rules of war the war criminals must hang
You're an idiot. The reason why you NEVER use tear gas is because the enemy might react with worse chemical weapons. This is the military equivalent of "I only fired a few warning shots".
I don't think that's a reasonable assessment. It's like saying bombs are off limits because it'll progress to nukes. If Ukraine starts launching VX gas, then they'll bleed support regardless of Russia's use of tear gas.
the slippery slope argument applies to this. If Russia thinks it can get away with teargas it might use more and more nasty agents while cucks in the west sit there and do nothing. As far as I know the agent they're using can frick people up for weeks
>the slippery slope argument applies to this. If Russia thinks it can get away with teargas it might use more and more nasty agents while cucks in the west sit there and do nothing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Battle_of_al-Faw
>The attack was timed to coincide with the beginning of the holy month of Ramadan, and when the Iranians were rotating their troops. At 5:00 AM, Iraq launched a massive artillery and air barrage of Iranian front lines. With the help of American satellite imagery, key areas such as supply lines, command posts, and ammunition depots, were hit by a storm of mustard gas and sarin nerve gas, as well as by conventional explosives.[
>The Iranians were completely taken by surprise during the battle, and had failed to regroup to counterattack. They were outnumbered 6:1 in infantry and had virtually no armor. Many, if not most, were killed or sickened by Iraqi mass chemical weapons bombardments
Checkmate NAFO
Every time I read about the Iran Iraq war I lose more faith in humanity
>this is the military equivalent of "I only fired a few warning shots".
>at them
>while they were walking towards me
>with a white flag
A is acceptable, B is not. Muh slippery slope. b***hing about logical fallacies while discussing an ongoing war is fricking moronic.
if it's like the other russian weapons it's probably underwhelming.
Tear gas is a chemical weapon, because you can't tell if it is or isn't something worse. It's the same reason why you don't generally launch ICBMs unless you're actually trying to nook.
Zyklon B is less harmful than tear gas, you fricking muppet. Look up the siege of Waco
>Chloropicrin
>In World War I, German forces used concentrated chloropicrin against Allied forces as a tear gas. While not as lethal as other chemical weapons, it induced vomiting and forced Allied soldiers to remove their masks to vomit, exposing them to more toxic gases used as weapons during the war.
So on top of an irritant, it's also an emetic agent. seems pretty fricked up to me tbh.
>While not as lethal as other chemical weapons, it induced vomiting and forced Allied soldiers to remove their masks to vomit
Uh? Isn't that the point of a gas mask?
chemicals enter through your skin
>enters your system through multiple vectors
>forces you to remove your mask or drown in your vomit
>you remove your mask and then die because they also bombarded you with chloramine or mustard gas
Wait, so both happen at the same time?
at typical gas bombardment would have an irritating agent and a lethal agent with some shrapnel mixed in
The shrapnel forces you to stay in your trench where the heavier than air gasses concentrate
the irritant is to get you to take of your mask or otherwise frick with you.
and then the lethal agent (or agents) get the job done.
It depends on the agent and the way it adsorbs. But yes, skin is porus. That's why you see stuff like MOPP suits that include full body protection in addition to the mask tightened around the face. Some agents will already just kind of function like that, others will say, be best adsorbed through mucus membrane or the lungs and be most effective paired with something to try and force you to expose them.
Point is gas masks are not 100% effective small amount of agents leak inside. People who where under chemical attack reported chemical smells inside gas masks.
Chloropicrin can induce vomit even at extremally low concentrations that get inside gas masks.
it's pretty clearly banned by the geneva protocol and the CWC
it's not a technicality
lol more esl posting
They can't help it anon their turd world stares can't see grammar
>Now that the gloves are off
It won't matter until the Eyebrow is also raised. After that we can finally get to he final stage, putting the ass in the ass.
Is it time to return to tradition?
Is that some Manuel I hear in the distance?
no we arent Black folk send the ukies jets
I guess they just went "Nyet, piss-soaked rag is fine" and made them stay in the trench.
>that time the russians attacked into the cloud of poison gas like it wasn't there and emerged on the other side looking like fricking zombies as the gas ate their flesh and it scared the Germans so much they retreated
why do you guys always cut off the source?
Because it'll be from some blog written by some alt-right nobody cuck. Also nothing is going to change, Russia could drop nerve gas of Kiev and nothing will happen.
>racist
Its not possible to racist against russians because ruasians aren't human
Its just tear gas who cares. Its fine to use against civilians
Civilians don't have WMDs to fire back with. Nations do. Morality in war is not about "oh that weapon causes people too many ouchies, cannot use it ;_;", it's about controlling the patterns of escalation and preventing a conflict about, say, an assassinated Prince from becoming a pointless bloodbath.
You're making a mountain out of a molehill. An escalation would be using sarin gas
Chemical weapons are by definition an escalation. Like right now Ukraine has every right to use chemical weapons back at Russia. It will quickly go from "tear gas usage is normalized" to "we're already using tear gas, might as well start using chlorine". Chemical weapon usage of any kind is a direct violation of the Geneva convention, no matter how 'harmless' the chemical used.
I bet you nothing will happen
Wait till vatniks start getting tear gassed on a regular basis and Russia cries crocodile tears as it pulls out the VX.
Chemical Weapons Convention, not Geneva Convention. Realistically Ukraine isn't going to respond in kind because A.) it's bad optics, and B.) they'd have to develop chemical warfare infrastructure.
They already have chemical warfare infrastructure. The 'fun' modern chemical weapons do require specialized industry, but anything that was used in WW1 is extremely simple. Especially if it is still used today for agricultural purposes, which chloropicrin is. That's probably where the Vantik got it from, some agricultural warehouse used for fumigation.
>They already have chemical warfare infrastructure. The 'fun' modern chemical weapons do require specialized industry, but anything that was used in WW1 is extremely simple. Especially if it is still used today for agricultural purposes, which chloropicrin is. That's probably where the Vantik got it from, some agricultural warehouse used for fumigation.
How much work would it actually take to get to agriculture drones spraying the front lines with VX or other nerve gas? Surely chemical weapons are a nightmare scenario for Russia as it invalidates their meatwave tactics.
Why wouldn't you use conventional chemical weapon delivery systems?
When the war lawyers investigate the war crimes, they'll see "made in china" on the drone and blame them
You can easily deploy chemical munitions via mortars. This is 19th century tech.
Actually, the Geneva Protocol of 1928 banned chemical weapons.
>pretending like it's limited to the ukraine side
get the frick out of here, tourist
2 more weeks and you'll see
They just santioned more Russian things and the Chinese for continuing to support the terrorists state of Putin
>Brings up reddit
>Muh brudda war
I say banning you wasnt enough, public execution would be in order for this amount of homosexualry.
Only people to invoke outside sites are migrants from them. Commit sudoku already.
Wasn't this happening about nine months ago?
It happens fairly frequently but the massive fear of escalation the west has and the localized nature of the attacks means nobody really cares. There were at least 600+ cases of it happening back in December.
https://t.me/OleksandrRuvin/133
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/04/06/russia-using-illegal-chemical-attacks-against-ukraine/
https://mil.in.ua/en/news/ukrainian-military-investigate-russian-poisoned-grenades/
Here's one example filmed by a RU telegram channel: https://files.catbox.moe/tlhj1q.mp4
First they drop a gas grenade on Ukrainian positions to make the defenders abandon them, then they follow up with conventional weapons to finish off the exposed defenders. That's their general use case right now.
>Can't get shit done against poor, smaller neighbor for two years
>Breaks out the ("mild") gas
>Starts making some gainz
Welp boys, I think the dude is dumb enough to take it there, down the road.
Shit's going to be a wild ride.
Yeah, I wouldn't wager my money on the outdated US nuclear arsenal actually working in the case of nuclear exchange.
Would probably force the hand of China as well, which would escalate to India then Pakistan, would be a fricking wild ride indeed.
>Would probably force the hand of China as well,
Why? They only have enough nukes to do countervalue. Why would they stick their necks out in a nuclear war that doesn't involve them?
You'd need to hit all of Russia, the east included, this would affect China, and it's not like they wouldn't use the opportunity to knock off a weakened mutt empire given the opportunity.
They might not have quite as large an arsenal as burgers, but it's 50 years newer, with better missile tech.
A nuclear exchange over the corrupt hellhole known as Ukraine would end in global thermonuclear hell, 100%
And there would be no winners after that.
New Zealand, Chile and Argentina might be able to ride it out somewhat.
> weakened mutt empire given the opportunity
We have enough modern nuclear weapons to destroy both Russia and China
No, you really don't, your most modern shit is from the 80s.
You'll damage them, maybe even destroy them, but all of burger empire will be glass as well.
Russian missiles are new, and their missile tech is the current gold standard.
"Best" case scenario would be a draw, which would just mean you suicided as a nation to protect Biden's dirty money.
No fricking clue why you rabid morons are cheering for the death of millions and in case of nuclear exchange, billions, all over a corrupt shithole with no relevance other than to piss off Russia.
I hope you get paid for shilling like this, otherwise it's just sad to see how fricking deranged you are.
>Russian missiles are new, and their missile tech is the current gold standard.
Oh no, it's moronic.
no please due tell us what was the chemical agent
we wanna laugh hard with the massive cope
Depends on where the ruskies use it.
>Iskander/Blyatweapon chimpout.
If a big city like Kharkiv is hit, then you can bet your ass that a no fly zone will be 3stablished above Ukraine.
>moderate gasseing on the battlefield/their own lines.
Epic grainy drone footage how 90 million HIMARS and Boris Johnson commandos got recked and pajeet shitposting. State department will twist the balls of everyone in congress and senate to send even more cold war era surplus to Ukraine and fill the storage at home with brand new lockmart shit.
source ruyssia used gas?
bzump
hopefully they break out the BZ and we get to see the real fun stuff start.
Russia uses tear gas only having in mind humanitarian purposes. Instead of throwing frag grenades into dugouts Rusian soldiers throw grenades with tear gas and take Ukrainian POW alive. I'm not even kidding.
>Russia uses tear gas only having in mind humanitarian purposes
Well, now Ukies are gonna use chem weapons in humanitarian purposes too, no kidding.
>Russia uses tear gas only having in mind humanitarian purposes.
Ukraine should set off radiological weapons for charity.
Delusional
shouldn't you be busy posting bbc threads?
I'm not sure it will, the only thing that'll break the ongoing escalation cucking is Ukraine strategically internalizing that westoids don't want them to properly win and deciding to go the fully asymmetric total war route: mass cas state destabilization ops inside r*ssia, reactor fuel dirty bombs, smoking zig diplomats & operatives in the west, threatening to tank Biden's reelection with made up M*GA conspiracy fodder, to ultimately realizing they have nine (9) Chernobyls worth of leverage against westoid cucks to force a NATO intervention.
There is no conspiracy, Hunter and Joe were stealing from Ukraine and significantly weakened them for years. Do you think Poroshenko was happy that he was forced to fire his chief prosecutor for the sake of not having his country cut off, in order to defend a corruption scheme? I wouldn't be surprised if thy'll gladly give Donald everything he asks for to destroy the Dems in exchange for continuing support.
Eh, they'd just claim it was fabricated evidence provided as a quid pro quo for continued support. Let's be honest lmao
Does it matter though, you couldnt convince blue no matter who voters that the sky is blue even if they only has to look up. Its the other voters who are grumbling about supporting Ukraine that could be courted with a different narrative, ie "Ukraine is also a victim of our political enemies, we can help eachother".
Everyone in Europe and the US state department (and Ukraine, going by the protests) wanted him gone. He was seen as insanely corrupt, and part of the purpose of the aid to Ukraine at that point was to nudge them over time to clean up their act.
The funny thing is that he actually closed any investigation into Hunter's meme company until after the US started trying to get him fired.
You knew all that, of course, but you don't care about what's true.
Nice fanfiction, Joe literally said on camera, on stage during a conference, that he withheld military assistance and aid money to force Poroshenko to fire Shokin entirely because he was poking at Burisma and nothing else. That is one billion in aid when they needed it the most just to swing his old pedo dick at them, to protect a company his own son was in the board of. The Bidens have done nothing but rip off and steal from Ukrainians.
ITP: LIES
you russians might have the ultimate nook tsar bomba but we have the ultimate chemical weapon
Nothing. Russia has nuclear weapons, so the US and other Western countries won't do anything.
This war has shown that if you're a country with nuclear weapons, you can get away with anything; no one will stop you.
They just yanked another 150-170 billion from Russians with sanctions anon. What are the Russian oligarchs going to do?
They'll take it from the average Russian. That increases death rates in Russia.
>muh nooks
How's that three day special military operation going? Did you reach Warsaw yet?
>criticize the fact that Western countries hold back from doing what's necessary because Russia posseses nukes and they don't want to get in direct conflict with a nuclear power
>somehow this makes me a Russian sympathizer
Frick you
NTA but you're an absolute moron.
Appeasement never works.
You can't hope and pray and apologize so they wouldn't use the nukes they absolutely can not shut up about. You need to take them away.
The Russian Federal Republics need to be split up and disarmed.
I'm not advocating appeasing anyone you fricking moron
If it was up to me, US troops would be going into Ukraine right now and engaging Russia forces, because Russia should be not allowed to get away with the shit its done in Ukraine
I AM CRITICIZING the US and Western countries for being too cowardly to do what needs to be done because Russia is a nuclear power
It's because of that cowardliness that Russia has been able to set an example; as long as you have nuclear weapons, the West won't directly engage you
I guarantee you, if Russia had no nuclear weapons, the US or NATO as a whole would probably have intervened by now
You say that but Iran isnt Nuclear and they get away with directly fricking with western powers, arming terrorists, bombing allies, interfering with civilian sea traffic and generally going OOK WE WILL NOOK despite not actually having nukes.
Western countries have been subverted into thinking that if you fight your enemies, they win.
Pretty much this. Non-nuclear states must either reconsider their stances or hide in a sphere of influence that involves less ass in the ass.
>you can get away with anything; no one will stop you.
Juries still out on whether Russia can get away with it or not.
For all their bravado they can't actually use their nukes to win the war and they aren't useful for protecting their economy either.
>you can get away with anything; no one will stop you.
Britain just announced the Ukrainians can use their stuff to strike Russia proper. I'm sure it's unrelated.
>Winning so hard you need to start using chemical weapons
lol, lmao
Teargas is banned as chemical weapons you moron it's only legally allowed to be used on civilians
>How will the use of chemical weapons effect the current stalemate now that the gloves are off
Simple solution: put enemy prisoners in sectors where chemical weapons are in use. Provide them with no PPE. Select for men with families, preferably younger ones. Record them begging their side not to gas them.
Right... why do I believe that it would have bo effect on the russians?
Russian tactics don't work on Russians
zigger mentality
>begging the question: the post
Time to give Ukraine napalm and our remaining VX stockpiles.
I hope Ukraine's allies actually allow Ukraine to take their gloves off.
It was fricking teargas, not mustard gas.
Tear gas is technically a chemical weapon, and therefore banned, but it's not like anyone really gives a frick.
All militaries use teargas when applicable.
This is just more fearmongering propaganda.
No fricking way, finally. Russians been using chemicals for a really long time in Ukraine. Finally it's being acknowledged
What's the nastiest shit we have nowadays? Like what's the most dangerous gas that's been invented that the Russians can deploy? Do you think they a couple canisters of vx lying around in storage?
>Like what's the most dangerous gas that's been invented that the Russians can deploy?
Novichok? That shit is comparable to VX.
>Do you think they a couple canisters of vx lying around in storage?
US government definitely does not have a classified chemical weapon manufacturing program.
>What's the nastiest shit we have
>Do you think they a couple canisters of vx lying around in storage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok
According to a classified (secret) report by the US Army National Ground Intelligence Center in Military Intelligence Digest dated 24 January 1997,[citation needed] agent designated A-232 and its ethyl analogue A-234 developed under the Foliant programme "are as toxic as VX, as resistant to treatment as soman, and more difficult to detect and easier to manufacture than VX". The binary versions of the agents reportedly use acetonitrile and an organic phosphate "that can be disguised as a pesticide precursor."
The agent A-234 is also supposedly around five to eight times more potent than VX.
The US always lies about chemical weapons. That's just their thing.
>that pic
What is "false flag" for $800?
What is "poisoning the well" for $1600?
>do chemical attack
>get some morons to pretend to "rebels" rescuing "innocents"
>pretend to "get caught" by posting your totally legit 'real_syrian_rebel69' twitter account
>oh no how clumsy of us to out ourselves 😉
cost: 20 mins, $40 in duria durka wages
millions of morons b8ed all around the world: priceless
I am not saying this is what happened; I neither know what happened, nor do I care. But you're a moron if you smugly hold up pic rel as evidence of deboooonking.
>What is "false flag" for $800?
What the US always does.
>What is "poisoning the well" for $1600?
Also what the US always does.
Rather they're just selective about who they get after for it. Everyone uses some form of chemical weapons, be it WP or sarin gas
>Wp smoke is totally the same thing as nerve agents guis!!!
Lmao
The football team I'm cheering for will win in approximately 2 more weeks due to this new revelation. I just have to post harder and call the opposing side shills and the war's outcome will surely change
I don’t know what the thread is screeching about but tear gas would be a very viable weapon if it was for enticing the enemy to surrender. Ie they’re holed up in a fortified basement position so they get hit with frequent tear gas attacks in order to wear them down psychologically until they surrender or retreat.
calling tear gas chemical weapons is like calling uranium ammo nuclear weapons. technically correct, but missing the point by a mile
why even fight if ur gonna be a pussy bout it