WI chemical weapons were not banned ...
- Thread starter Khanzeer
- Start date
Couldn’t this impact WW1 (and thus butterfly everything above) as without being banned the Great Powers invest more into chemical weapons, and as a result they are more advanced when the shooting starts up?
Chemical weapons aren't all that useful. They might not actually be used that much, even if they were legal.
Khanzeer
Banned
true against well equpped and well trained troops but against poorly equipped troops esp of third world nations they may be very useful
elkarlo
Banned
Anti colonial revolts are going to be suppressed in an ugly manner.
Also Italy and Japan wouldn't have been so shy using chess and biologicals against Ethiopia and China.
The first generation of Chemical weapon were not effective
The Germans use by-products of Ammunition production mostly chlorine
Later that change with introduction of White Star and Mustard Gas
But most Radical change happen after WW1 in Germany
I.G. Farben try to develop new pesticide, there result was so toxic that unusable for practical use, except Military
So those pesticides became first generation of Nerve gas: Tabun and Sarin
now imagine a WW2 with wide spread use of Chemical weapons
Geon made a excellent TL about WW2 were Axis and Allies grab into box of Pandora
https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=timelines:how_silent_fall_the_cherry_blossoms
The Germans use by-products of Ammunition production mostly chlorine
Later that change with introduction of White Star and Mustard Gas
But most Radical change happen after WW1 in Germany
I.G. Farben try to develop new pesticide, there result was so toxic that unusable for practical use, except Military
So those pesticides became first generation of Nerve gas: Tabun and Sarin
now imagine a WW2 with wide spread use of Chemical weapons
Geon made a excellent TL about WW2 were Axis and Allies grab into box of Pandora
https://www.alternatehistory.com/wiki/doku.php?id=timelines:how_silent_fall_the_cherry_blossoms
The problem with chemical weapons is, as noted, they have limited utility against trained and equipped troops. You also risk your own troops if they are delivered to the wrong address, the winds shift, or your forces have to go through a hot zone - and being accurate in where things are contaminated can be difficult. If you have two forces that are roughly equally well trained, equipped and "armed" the result is misery for everyone, even with nerve agents casualty levels among troops that are not all that elevated. If one side is not trained, equipped, and capable of retaliation or you are targeting civilians that is another story.
The statement that chemical weapons have limited utility against trained troops simply isn't true. Fact is that with sarin and similar stuff it will reduce combat effectiveness of perfectly prepared units with 50%. First with encumberance as mopp stuff is impossible to fight in. Second by making any sort of medical care impossible.
Reduce effectiveness, yes...but then YOUR troops also have to fight and operate in MOPP 4. As far as medical care, having been in that line of work, you can deal with it although a real pain in the ass and lots of precautions. Obviously you need to move to an uncontaminated area to decon and work on the sick/wounded but there are ways to do this. The use of persistent agents is places like airfields and logistics depots where YOU won't be in the near future.
hammo1j
Donor
Hi Michel
Thank you for your recommendation of Geon's timeline. It's one the best things I ever read on here.
I wanted to post my Thanks to Geon but there was the 1 year rule. However I believe you two are friends: can I ask you to pass on my regards.
Thank you
trurle
Banned
Overall, unrestricted chemical weapons raises a threshold before war starts. Number of wars reduced, but ones which happen anyway turns really ugly. Japanese army-level chemical artillery back in 1940, have produced total death zones roughly 10x10km in size (well, in most ideal conditions of no wind and flat terrain). Would such practice be completely unrestricted, we are going to see total loss of life to chemical weapons measuring tens of millions to hundred of millions person, most of them non-combatants.
Moving up a bit, I suspect some realy ugly things happen in Vietnam at all stages of the conflict(s).
Mustard gas was discover in same time, but took 20 years until the germans used it for combat.
fact is Tabun was ignored for over 38 years until some it's rediscovery at I.G.Farben as potential pesticide.
Indeed. There was a lot of nineteenth century interest in chemical weapons, e.g. the Crimean and American Civil wars, but little industrial capacity. A failure of the 1899 conference might see more interest and research, "just in case". Possibly leading to the use of tabum, sulphur mustard and other agents early in the Great War. Quite possibly a significant advantage for Germany...
Not necessarily. While CW agents are useful against hidden forces in difficult terrain they're also useful against US logistics bases and soft targets. If the US use lethal anti-personnel agents, escpeially in a setting where this is de rigueur, the Soviet Union would have no problem shipping CW rockets to it's proxies.