punch@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F. Punch) (01/23/89)
This question arises because of the recent discussion vis-a-vi Iraq. Also, I have been reading a book lately, "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes (Very good book if you are interested in the politics of the thing) where a number of the scientists defended their roles in gas warfare. James Bryant Conant, a president of Harvard has this to say about his role "I did not see in 1917, and do not see in 1968, why tearing a man's guts out by a high-explosive shell is to be preferred to maiming him by attacking his lungs or skin." Rhodes claimed that in WW1, only 5% of the 21 million casualties were from gas attacks, 30,00 deaths from gas vs. 9 million overall, supporting the claim that when most widely used, it was a small thought significant part of warfare. So the question is, is the view taken by Mr. Conant true or is there more to the story. That is, is there REALLY any difference to gas warfare versus regular bombardment in terms of destructive capability? I mean, assuming regular "rules-of-the-road" tactics, does gas warfare represent a significant escalation in destruction? Even assuming terrorist activities, is it worse than a bomb It seems to me (wholly ignorant on the subject so strictly uninformed opinion) that it would be no worse. The only two differences would seem to be the novelty (and horror) of gas (though dismemberment seems just as bad) and the potential for more civilian casualties if it were used as a civilian weapon, since more tech. might be needed to fend it off than bombs. As a terrorist weapon it is perhaps "more deadly", but I wonder beyond that. Bottom line, is the fuss being put up all that realistic given the normal weapons these kinds of countries have? There is no such thing as a problem * >>>Bill Punch<<< without a gift for you in its hands. * punch@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu You seek problems because you need * ...!att!osu-cis!punch their gifts. R. Bach * 2036 Neil Ave;OSU;Columbus, OH 43210
smb@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com (Steven M. Bellovin) (01/24/89)
In article <3357@cbnews.ATT.COM>, punch@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F. Punch) writes: > Also, I have been reading a book lately, "The Making of the Atomic > Bomb" by Richard Rhodes (Very good book if you are interested in the > politics of the thing)... Let me strongly second the recommendation of this book. It's a comprehensive discussion of entire history of the construction of the bomb (and won a Pulitzer Prize, if I recall correctly). It starts with things like how the neutron was discovered, goes into the personalities of the various folks involved, the technical details (the part most often overlooked in popular depictions of an atomic bomb is the ``initiator'' -- the gadget that emits the initial neutrons -- and it turns out to be a very difficult gadget indeed), the politics, and the morality. I do quarrel with some of the conclusions -- I very strongly do not feel that the morality of bombing cities can be equated with the Holocaust, even though the former is ethically very questionable -- but the book as a whole is still worth reading. (One of my favorite vignettes concerns the effort to manufacture explosive lenses of sufficiently high-quality for the implosion. Some of the castings had small cavities, which would disturb the symmetry of the explosion. So the explosives expert *drilled* into the blocks (using a dentist's drill) and filled the cavities with fresh slurry! He didn't know if it was safe, so he refused to ask anyone else to do it.) --Steve Bellovin ulysses!smb
military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) (01/25/89)
>Rhodes claimed that in WW1, only 5% of the 21 million casualties were >from gas attacks, 30,00 deaths from gas vs. 9 million overall... It is a verifiable fact that there were very few deaths or permanent injuries from gas in WWI; most gas casualties recovered completely. (In particular, despite the well-known depictions of gas-blinded soldiers, very few gas blindings were permanent -- many fewer than blindings by shell splinters.) Prepared soldiers were seldom hurt much by gas attack, in fact; it was primarily a harassing tactic. (In WWII, serious consideration was given to saturating Japanese-held islands with mustard gas for a few days before landings, to reduce the notoriously high effectiveness of the defences by forcing soldiers to spend several days in gas suits.) One may question, however, to what extent this experience is applicable to modern persistent nerve agents. The modern chemicals kill in much smaller doses, can be absorbed through the skin, and dissipate much less quickly. It is very difficult to protect soldiers against them, and significant protection for civilians is virtually impossible. Civilian deaths in a modern gas war would be massive. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
john@jclyde.cactus.org (John B. Meaders Jr.) (01/25/89)
In article <3357@cbnews.ATT.COM> punch@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F. Punch) writes: > >Bottom line, is the fuss being put up all that realistic given the >normal weapons these kinds of countries have? Speaking as a soldier, all I can say is that my main reason I am against chemical warfare is that it is a pain. Combat effectiveness of troops is drastically reduced when wearing MOPP (Mission Oriented Protective Posture) gear. However, I can't really see any fault with your article since it is mainly academic whether it is worse to be maimed by HE or chemicals. John B. Meaders, Jr. 2LT, QM USA -- John B. Meaders, Jr. BS Petroleum Engineering UT '88 1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX 78752 ATT: Voice: +1 (512) 451-5038 Data: +1 (512) 371-0550 UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!bigtex!jclyde!john or john@jclyde.cactus.org
c60c-3ar%web-3d.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Raymond Tam) (01/26/89)
From: c60c-3ar%web-3d.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Raymond Tam) >One may question, however, to what extent this experience is applicable >to modern persistent nerve agents. The modern chemicals kill in much >smaller doses, can be absorbed through the skin, and dissipate much less >quickly. This is a very good point. Whereas the gas used in WWI were not designed solely for killing enemy soldiers (they were irritants, supposedly), nerve agents are designed to kill, not incapacitate soldiers. Also, mustard gas and chlorine gas, often used in WWI, could be detected *before* concentrations of the gas proved harmful. Modern nerve agents, however, are oderless and usually very difficult to detect visually. I've heard that there may be battlefield instruments to detect nerve agents, but I'm not sure (anyone care to comment?). Even so, it does not seem very probable or practical that all areas in a combat zone will have one of these, even if they do exist. > It is very difficult to protect soldiers against them, and >significant protection for civilians is virtually impossible. Civilian >deaths in a modern gas war would be massive. Very true. A modern war involving nerve agents in Europe or any other densly poplulated area would kill a very significant portion of the civilian population, especially since some gases won't disippate for days. Raymond Tam