Would the U.S. ever use chemical weapons?

The U.S., having the world's largest stockpile of chemical weapons, is it possible they would use any of it?

I know they use tear gas, but I'm talking about nerve gas, mustard gas, tabun, and VX. If the strategic situation showed an endless stream of Chinese troops (no offense to China, just a logical choice) overruning U.S. troops, I would saturate the the entire battlefield with chemical weapons.

Russia has about 10 times as much as the US. The Chinese may have even more.
If the US was cinsidering CM's then I would imagine nukes would be on the table too. So therefore they would nuke troops concentrations rather then use CW if of course there was such a situation which would demand it.

Originally posted by mad scientist
Russia has about 10 times as much as the US. The Chinese may have even more.
If the US was cinsidering CM's then I would imagine nukes would be on the table too. So therefore they would nuke troops concentrations rather then use CW if of course there was such a situation which would demand it.

But nukes are way too destructive. Being politically-minded and all, it seems "better" to use chemical weapons.

Well some people think that U.S. has already used it on its own citizen in the 20s and 50s to see its effects on humans.

Originally posted by surfup
Well some people think that U.S. has already used it on its own citizen in the 20s and 50s to see its effects on humans.

That's why chemical weapons are a more favorable avenue of mass destruction. It's after-effects are concentrated on where it was inflicted upon, unlike nukes, which can affect for hundreds of miles.

Official US policy states that we will NEVER use chemical or biological weapons and nuclear weapons only in retaliation to nuclear attack.

This I believe. I really don't think we would need to use chem/bio weapons. We have a large enough conventional stockpile to reduce almost any country to dust if the situation warrants.

We can only hope these shocking wepons that cause so much death and suffering no matter who has them are never used. I have seen a doco on the affects and the shocking way people die from them and and they should be banned.

Originally posted by dwh0
We can only hope these shocking wepons that cause so much death and suffering no matter who has them are never used. I have seen a doco on the affects and the shocking way people die from them and and they should be banned.

I see no problem with having them (not using). I mean, the amount of pain and suffering they cause is really no different from blowing off half of the body of somebody.

Let's face it, weapons of any kind, when used to their full potential, cause the same amount of pain and suffering. If we're gonna ban Weapons of Mass Destruction, we should ban EVERY weapon.

Of course, that'll never and cannot happen.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Official US policy states that we will NEVER use chemical or biological weapons and nuclear weapons only in retaliation to nuclear attack.

This I believe. I really don't think we would need to use chem/bio weapons. We have a large enough conventional stockpile to reduce almost any country to dust if the situation warrants.

Well, in the face of overwhelming numbers and firepower from the enemy, conventional weapons really don't do the trick.

I think chemical and biological weapons seem like a "There's no tommorrow" kind of weapon. Like when enemy forces are closing in on the capital or something.

Well, in the face of overwhelming numbers and firepower from the enemy, conventional weapons really don't do the trick.

I think chemical and biological weapons seem like a "There's no tommorrow" kind of weapon. Like when enemy forces are closing in on the capital or something.

I think if someone is marching on its capital, they would try to use a nuke and totally wipe it out, rather than let the chemical weapons slowly attack.

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Well, in the face of overwhelming numbers and firepower from the enemy, conventional weapons really don't do the trick.

And which enemy's overwhelming numbers and firepower are we likely to face?

No, I think China has plans other than conventional warfare. I think they are moving to subject us economically. And our current enemy are so small in numbers and firepower that all we need worry ourselves with is the possibility of nuclear or chem/bio attack.

And with their lack of central leadership or organization, nukes and gas are out of the question as a form of retaliation. And that's the way they like it.

The reason we refuse to use chemical weapons is because of what we witnessed in WWI. Chemical weapons do horrible things to people, and it's a horrible way to die. It literally forces one to turn themselves inside out. For the same reasons, flame weapons were banned.

Not to say that nuclear weapons don't produce some horrendous results, but during the cold war, it was a deterrence factor. The policy of use of nukes practically ensured that we would not have to use them. Of course, at the time, there were only 4 countries that had nukes.

Policy on nuclear weapons has changed as of late. One of the first things GW did was to pull out of the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, and he's working on getting us out of the Test Ban treaty (some people say that we're already out of it, but it's not quite a done deal yet). GW wants to develop now 'usable nuclear weapons' such as nuclear bunker-busters and nuclear-tipped artillery shells (for which the Crusader mobile artillery platform was intended).

But hey, all the policy's gonna change soon, cause I guarantee that someone's getting nuked in the next ten years.

Originally posted by surfup
I think chemical and biological weapons seem like a "There's no tommorrow" kind of weapon. Like when enemy forces are closing in on the capital or something.

I think if someone is marching on its capital, they would try to use a nuke and totally wipe it out, rather than let the chemical weapons slowly attack.

Chemical weapons don't "slowly attack." It's very instant.

Again, chemical and biological weapons seem to be more of a political weapon. It's something you use if you want to kill lots of hostiles without destroying the world.

Well, chemical weapons might be able to stall a modern army but not stop it. Gas masks and the like are pretty standard, and today's military is highly mobile. If you're going to use a WMD, you better use one that'll make your enemies dead (like a nuke) and not one that they can just drive around.

We did develop very small nukes for halting Soviet Tank Columns during a hypothetical European invasion.

True Eso,

The only people with a tactical advantage with chem/bio weapons are terrorists, because thier tactics involve terrorizing civilians, who have no access to survivability equipment like most modern militaries. Terrorists aim to quell thier opposition into appeasment slowly with random and devastating attacks on innocents. And it seems to work pretty well with some countries. I guess that's the one drawback of having a government where the people get to choose policy. Civilians scare easily.

(ADD) It's funny, I remember watching an episode of West Wing where the guy that was in Billy Madison was talking to the Press Secretary about how all througout history, acts of terrorism have inevitabley failed to achieve the results intended. Yet Spain caved after only 200+ people died in the train bombing. The terrorists achieved two victory conditions here. They got the people of the country to roll over immediately, mitigating their credibility in the future, and affected the outcome of an election, something which I believe they thought might be possible, but hadn't tried yet. Now they're using the tactic in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And they'll probably try it here, too. It won't work, but they'll try.


[edit on 19-9-2004 by DeltaChaos]

chem / bio would not be an option due to previously listed protections...the other drawback to chem / bio is the fact that they can be environmentally tempermental....ie. Is it raining what are the wind conditions etc.....tatical nuclear or full nuclear weapons on the other hand allows a concentration on the intended target with no real concern for environmental conditions, and the area effected is much more predictable.

Eso...

"Is it because you're an idiot? Yes it is!"

That still has me rolling. For some reason I hear a motherly voice scolding a child like that when I read it.

LMAOSHISMP!

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

(Yet Spain caved after only 200+ people died in the train bombing. The terrorists achieved two victory conditions here. They got the people of the country to roll over immediately, mitigating their credibility in the future, and affected the outcome of an election, something which I believe they thought might be possible, but hadn't tried yet.

[edit on 19-9-2004 by DeltaChaos]

Ah, someone who knows not what they talk of. Spain chose not to be involved BEFORE the train bombings. Get your facts right before critisising a country.

Originally posted by Kriz_4

Ah, someone who knows not what they talk of. Spain chose not to be involved BEFORE the train bombings. Get your facts right before critisising a country.

No they didn't, the Government of the day were going to leave the soldiers there. Before the bombing they were the overwhelming favorites to win the election. After the bombing the opposition ran on the ticket We'll bring the soldiers home ( which coincidentally is what Al-Qaeda demanded ) and then they won the election.
You're the one who doesn't know what you're talking about. Get your facts right before you critisize people.

[edit on 19-9-2004 by mad scientist]

Originally posted by Kriz_4

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

(Yet Spain caved after only 200+ people died in the train bombing. The terrorists achieved two victory conditions here. They got the people of the country to roll over immediately, mitigating their credibility in the future, and affected the outcome of an election, something which I believe they thought might be possible, but hadn't tried yet.

[edit on 19-9-2004 by DeltaChaos]

Ah, someone who knows not what they talk of. Spain chose not to be involved BEFORE the train bombings. Get your facts right before critisising a country.

No, Spain had troops in Iraq before the bombings. After the bombing, they pulled out. The bombing had a prominent effect on the election.

Who's criticizing? I'm just stating facts.

Oh, and never end a sentence with a preposition. Unless you're me.

[edit on 19-9-2004 by DeltaChaos]

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
And which enemy's overwhelming numbers and firepower are we likely to face?

It was a hypothetical situation. And it's not entirely impossible, unfortunately.