so how good are chemical weapons? I just read about the tokyo sarin attack and well...
>couple of pounds of sarin spilled on an enclosed space full of people
>only 12 died and 50 got severely injured
seems like dispersion is such a problem that they may as well be useless, I mean this was literally the best possible condition to use the thing and it was less effective than just a maniac with a knife
Ask the Kurds
Those 50 injured are crippled for life
72 casualties ain't bad numbers
yeah but that was under ideal conditions on civilians, I don't think shit would work if used against troops with as much as a gas mask or just a cloth or something
i think the sarin in tokyo was shit quality.
gas is really good for counter battery artillery fire.
Pretty bad, the real high quality chemical weapons would be akin to using a nuclear weapon in triggering MAD, while the low quality shit the thirdies use is basically slightly stronger pepper spray since to actually manufacture strong chemicals you need to be smart
>expensive
>requires highly professional handling during its creation, storage, transport and use/disposal
>needed in vast amounts to be useful
>not too vast if you intend to be where you’re shooting it at one day
Things that go boom just do the same job for less. I’d recommend reading Toxic by Dan Kaszeta
based, thanks for the book anon already pirated it
They're pretty shit, Not Gunna Lie.
There's all sorts of caveats and shit regarding the effective usage of War Gasses.
I've read several WWI writeups from what would be called the point of the spear.
AMA?
And Flamethrowers too I guess.
>AMA?
just tell us some general things about chem weapons anon, from everything I have read even sarin and vx seem like such a pain in the ass to use effectively that I wonder why even bother, I can't even imagine how shit phosgene or hydrogen sulfide would be like when they are like 100x less toxic than sarin
Their dispersion method was to take a bag of their bathtub sarin, drop it on the floor, poke it with an umbrella, and walk away.
You can see drastically different results on each train depending on how long it got to evaporate before some train attendant went "wtf is this", cleaned up the spill, and then died of a massive dose.
If they had actually aerosolized it might have been a lot more horrific. It's pretty incredible that they orchestrated a massive plot and manufactured the chemicals but couldn't think of putting some timed sprayer in a suitcase with a hole in it.
They built an aeresol rig and did an attack with it the year before.
Shit Failed, kek.
Believe it or not, chemical weapons can be hard.
IIRC they could have simply burned it and done way better.
>seems like dispersion is such a problem
If you had actually done your homework you'd know that they did basically nothing whatsoever to disperse the sarin in the subway, so no fricking shit they got bad dispersion.
>Shit Failed, kek.
Eight dead, hundreds injured, and that was outside. Maybe not the result they had hoped for, but hardly an outright failure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matsumoto_sarin_attack
>Believe it or not, chemical weapons can be hard.
That is certainly true though. Sarin production for example will tend to give you a lot of very hot hydrogenflouride as a by-product. Have fun with that.
https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/case-studies/2019/05/23/analysis-of-the-park-patriot-sarin-lab-in-the-moscow-region/
I can't think of a situation where chemical weapons are effective where incendiaries wouldn't be even more effective.
Only really effective for total area denial and as a terror weapon against noncombatants nowadays.
>so how good are chemical weapons?
Chemical weapons are one of those ultra dickhead weapons that are so evil and terrifying that even humanity uses its rare better judgement not to use them. Hitler didn't use them despite having them and losing the war, the USA and USSR didn't use them despite stockpiling enough to kill the whole world.
It's a good weapon for assassination but as a tool of straight up warfare the risk is too high that once you use it the enemy will start using it and create an arms spiral.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/how-death-6000-sheep-spurred-american-debate-chemical-weapons-cold-war-180968717/
Also there's something creepy about a weapon that just kills you without damaging anything else and is completely odorless, tasteless, colorless, and can persist in the environment for about as long as it takes motor oil to evaporate.
Not something to frick around with.
Chems are ANNOYING. You can dress for them unlike shrapnel but NBC gear takes all the fun out of war. They're not very effective but they're a massive asspain even for the using side. Chems are not even really WMD, but are so classified so nukes can be used in reprisal for the annoyance.
Spend twelve hours exercising in MOPP 4 every day for a week or so then imagine never being able to unmask. I did and it was nasty. Work/rest cycles don't work IRL either.