Gas As A Weapon. Ethical?

[cronus]

If you need to kill your enemy in a conflict isn't the use of nerve gas which inflicts death within a few seconds preferable to explosive which a) damages infrastructure? b) might leave people dying in agony over hours or days? Surely it is only squeamishness that might have made gas appear unethical? when correctly applied it could be the most ethical and economic weapon humans have at their disposal?

[mistermack]

Back in the cold war they developed battlefield nuclear weapons called neutron bombs.

The idea was that the neutrons killed the people, without blasting the infrastructure to bits.
Very little difference to using gas, really.
I'm sure that they are still in the stockpile, although the principle of low damage was never realised in practice. I think that they pretty much flattened anything within the range of lethal neutrons, so the theoretical advantage wasn't there in reality.

[klr]

If you need to kill your enemy in a conflict isn't the use of nerve gas which inflicts death within a few seconds preferable to explosive which a) damages infrastructure? b) might leave people dying in agony over hours or days? Surely it is only squeamishness that might have made gas appear unethical? when correctly applied it could be the most ethical and economic weapon humans have at their disposal?

By that logic, biological weapons would be even better, since they are even cheaper still than chemical weapons.

All the major powers had poison gas at their disposal in WW II. But apart from the Japanese in Manchuria, they did not get used, largely because of the fear or reprisals in kind.

[cronus]

If you need to kill your enemy in a conflict isn't the use of nerve gas which inflicts death within a few seconds preferable to explosive which a) damages infrastructure? b) might leave people dying in agony over hours or days? Surely it is only squeamishness that might have made gas appear unethical? when correctly applied it could be the most ethical and economic weapon humans have at their disposal?

By that logic, biological weapons would be even better, since they are even cheaper still than chemical weapons.

All the major powers had poison gas at their disposal in WW II. But apart from the Japanese in Manchuria, they did not get used, largely because of the fear or reprisals in kind.

Biological weapons suffer containment issues as their efficiency increases, whereas gas does not(to the same degree). The way to prevent reprisals is to maximise the kill count, especially in areas where gas might be stored. In a time of asymmetrical warfare such as the modern era fear of reprisals should be greatly reduced in knowledge of a enemies technical & educational weaknesses. It is a empty cultural artefact rather than any moral consideration that prevents this ethical lethality from assuming it's rightful place in the modern states armoury.

[piscator]

[JimC]

Farting in public.

Ethical?

[Seth]

The reason CBRNs are weapons of mass destruction is because once released, they cannot be controlled to avoid (as much as possible) civilian casualties.

"Civilized warfare", as oxymoronic as it is, requires stand-up force against force to determine a victor, not simple genocide of the enemy.

A JDAM may cause a building to collapse and people to die horrible, agonizing deaths, but it's only that particular building, not every other person in the area.

So no, CBRN is not ethical or moral. One of the ethical reasons for a force on force battle is that it is the horror of war that wearies the population and eventually drives them to force their leaders to knock it off while not destroying entire populations of non-combatants.

Me, I prefer Thunderdome, where the opposing national leaders (not their proxies) are thrown into a cage to fight it out to the death, winner takes all.