Why is Nuclear the approved WMD and not Chemical?

[Hugo Drax]

Chemical weapons seems the best WMD since it does not destroy buildings and it becomes inert over a short period of time. This makes the land and area useable again.


Nuclear weapons on the other hand pretty much turns the area into a radioactive hazard zone that cannot be used for thousands of years. Not only that but it causes fallout to spread to locations outside of the primary focus area. It makes land unusable and has a very long term effect, way past any war.


So why not ban Nuclear weapons and embrace chemical weapons instead?

 

[Sonikku]

Good point. Countries nuke people and nobody raises a fuss. Countries use chemicals however and everyone makes a big deal about it.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Good point. Countries nuke people and nobody raises a fuss. Countries use chemicals however and everyone makes a big deal about it.

When was the last time a country nuked another country?

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Chemical weapon bans are a cultural taboo. Chemicals are easy to make, hide, smuggle, trade. They can be easily dispersed. Even the most backwards countries (e.g. Syria) can make these terrible chemicals. Nuclear weapons are much harder to make, especially nukes that can be transported or launched properly. Generally only civilized nations, responsible nations, can do this. So, while they are much worse, they aren't as prolific.

 

[xBiffx]

OP Translation:

I'd love to go on about the benefits of picking up a turd from the clean end but in the end its not going to get me out of business of picking up a turd.

 

[woolfe9998]

Proliferation of nukes is already not allowed by treaty. The only difference is that we don't try to disarm countries who already have nukes because the military option is not viable for obvious reasons.

There is no reason to embrace nukes OR chemical weapons.

 

[Fayd]

Chemical weapons seems the best WMD since it does not destroy buildings and it becomes inert over a short period of time. This makes the land and area useable again.


Nuclear weapons on the other hand pretty much turns the area into a radioactive hazard zone that cannot be used for thousands of years. Not only that but it causes fallout to spread to locations outside of the primary focus area. It makes land unusable and has a very long term effect, way past any war.

google "neutron bomb". It leaves structures intact, leaves minor residual radiation, and is far more effective than chemical weapons.

 

[brycejones]

OP Translation:

I'd love to go on about the benefits of picking up a turd from the clean end but in the end its not going to get me out of business of picking up a turd.

For once I agree with you.

 

[ss284]

Because nuclear bombs are more easily delivered and have a much higher payload. You would probably need a bunch of b52s flying over a city and dumping chemicals to kill everyone. Or you can just shoot an ICBM.

Also, the traditional purpose of a bomb was to destroy infrastructure first, people second.

 

[exdeath]

google "neutron bomb". It leaves structures intact, leaves minor residual radiation, and is far more effective than chemical weapons.

Neutrons by definition leave a lot of residual radiation via neutron absorption and transmutation of the environment itself. Anything metal or concrete bathed in neutron flux would be inhospitable to human life.

 

[Fern]

Why is Nuclear the approved WMD and not Chemical?

Because the big powerful countries who make the rules have nuke weapons and don't need chem weapons.

Fern

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Nukes are harder to deliver and produce. Easier to control who has them.

 

[Doppel]

Because chem is inhuman. Killing thousands in one bomb and giving burns to the rest is not, though.

To be truthful it is for the reason fern and others have said. Few countries have nukes so feigning shock at chem while having a nuke stockpile is in the big countries' interests.

 

[zinfamous]

Not sure if serious. Nuclear weapons have only been used twice in history, and the world opinion on their use is rather roundly clarified.

There are already ongoing non-proliferation talks and treaties, with the presumptive goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapon technology.

At the same time, creating them is complicated and therefore inherently limits their existence; unlike chem weapons.

As for chemical weapons, the world has a much longer history with them. World opinion on their use was already quite negative before WW2 began.

 

[Smoblikat]

When was the last time a country nuked another country?

I believe we were the first and only country savage enough to nuke innocent civilians.

 

[Fayd]

I believe we were the first and only country savage enough to nuke innocent civilians.

meh.

we bombed and firebombed "innocent civilians" in far greater numbers.

and we're hardly the first and only country to do that.

for some reason, the world has forgotten what "total war" means.

We as humans have a VERY long history of not differentiating between armies and civilians. An enemy is an enemy, so to speak.

 

[Gintaras]

Because the big powerful countries who make the rules have nuke weapons and don't need chem weapons.

Fern

I think...right answer to OP...

 

[Doppel]

meh.

we bombed and firebombed "innocent civilians" in far greater numbers.

and we're hardly the first and only country to do that.

for some reason, the world has forgotten what "total war" means.

We as humans have a VERY long history of not differentiating between armies and civilians. An enemy is an enemy, so to speak.

Yes really the notion that civilians are not reasonable targets but military are--in a full on war--is a ridiculous notion and nobody ever fighting for their survival takes it seriously anyway or ever has. The allies went hog wild in WWII just as axis did. They were not as immoral in their treatment of prisoners but civilian targets definitely existed. Civilians feed armies after all and so they have bought into the war in non-fighting ways.

 

[Gintaras]

meh.

we bombed and firebombed "innocent civilians" in far greater numbers.

and we're hardly the first and only country to do that.

for some reason, the world has forgotten what "total war" means.

We as humans have a VERY long history of not differentiating between armies and civilians. An enemy is an enemy, so to speak.

Enemy is ALWAYS - on the other side of the fence...How fences are created?
Turn on your radio or TV - very carefully - they tell who your enemy is...

What's a Democracy is? When some country tell other how to live and behave - to become vassals of Main democracy...to give resources - oil, natural gas for free...
Totalitarian countries are those, who resist Democracy - to work for free for democracy countries...to give all the resources democracy countries do need very badly - for free...

US, EU - are good countries...Russia, China - are bad - they want our Federal Reserve to work hard - to print more $$$ for goods they manufacture or for resources they have...

But we do have nukes...

 

[Binarycow]

Like it or not, Might is always Right, like Fern said above.

 

[Gintaras]

Like it or not, Might is always Right, like Fern said above.

Are you ready, just in case, not you mighty be not righty?

Germans in 1941 thought just like you, but others proved - they not so righty...and not so mighty...

Are you ready for that? some germans that thought like you do...weren't ready for those changes - they were gone for good - in heavens or hell...

Who's stupid - not one who does makes a mistake...Stupid - who can not learn from mistakes other have made...

 

[Jhhnn]

Want to know the difference between poison gas & cluster munitions? Unexploded cluster munitions remain deadly for years after the attack, while poison gas disperses rather quickly...

Neither are intended for use as strategic weapons, while nukes are...

Well, unless you're the Israelis trying to depopulate southern Lebanon.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I believe we were the first and only country savage enough to nuke innocent civilians.

We were the only nation to have nukes in WW2. If Churchill had had them Berlin would have been hit. Same with France or the USSR.

Regardless, the point of nukes soon became completely different than any weapon before them, which was to have but not use them. Chemical weapons are less disastrous overall and so have been used more often.

 

[colonelciller]

Because the big powerful countries who make the rules have nuke weapons and don't need chem weapons.

Fern

/thread

everyone else can stop posting now.

seriously

 

[DominionSeraph]

/thread

everyone else can stop posting now.

seriously

How about you shut up before you give me an aneurysm with the doubling up on Fern's inanity?

Chemical weapons are banned by general acclaim because they're too good. By having them around you are asking to have you and everyone you care for die. They are easy to manufacture, relatively easy to disperse, and they are weapons of mass, indiscriminate depopulation, making absolute control of vital importance.
Countries break up. Civil wars happen. Governments use weapons against their people. This threat on top of your standard international arms races means that you are fucked by proliferation. You cannot maintain control, so if everyone doesn't agree not to use them, they're going to be used, and there's no line you can draw around yourself that will maintain the perception of special protection. You can imagine that bullets won't hit you. You can imagine that artillery shell won't hit the house you're in. But when it's a gas that suffuses the very air around you?
Yeah, you're dead, and you know it.

Nukes are expensive and have MAJOR downsides to using them: destruction of infrastructure and fallout means that you not only don't get their stuff, you're poisoning yourself. So each side with nukes has an independent reason not to use them. Chemical weapons, OTOH, have no such independent reasons. They are damned near the perfect weapon. Only in agreement that you each don't want them used on you to the point where each is willing to agree not to use them on others is there safety. And if you can agree to that, you can agree to get rid of them for additional safety, raising the bar required before anyone in the future could use them.

"Aggressive" does not mean "suicidal."