WI Chemical weapons are not banned and have widespread use in the post 1945 period

destiple

Banned
WI CW were not banned after WW2 and lot of countries get capability to produce CW and is extensively exported by both USSR and NATO essentially as a "poor man's atom bomb"

What will be the effect of extensive use of CW in postwar conflicts like
1-Korea
2-Vietnam
3-Iran Iraq war ( far more than usual)
4-Afghanistan war
5-Arab Isreali conflicts
6-Falklands
7-Yugoslavia civil wars
8-By Libya in Chad
9-Indo-pak wars
10-by RSA and RHodesia against African insurgents
11-Angolan civil war
etc
Please comment if you think they will in anyway affect the conflict prolong shorten or change outcome or nature
 
The problem with chemical weapons is that they make operating in a chemical environment equally nasty for BOTH sides. They confer a significant advantage when one side is well equipped and trained to operate in the chemical environment and the other not so much. If the fighting is going to be relatively close to your major civilian population centers (like Israel in the Arab-Israeli wars), you really don't want to have chemicals being used as civilians getting slimed is really bad. Another issue is persistent versus nonpersistent agents, you don't want to use persistent agents in areas you may traverse or want to annex.

The most effective use of chemicals OTL was by the Italians in Ethiopia, Japan in China, and the British in colonial circumstances. One side could protect themselves, the other not at all (read accounts of shoeless Ethiopians in limited clothing hit by Italian mustard...).

Other than #8 & 10, using chemicals will likely just make everything worse for everybody and/or be totally useless.
 

destiple

Banned
thanks, what about use of nonpersistant agents as a shock weapon close to frontlines to help a breakthrough ?
 
thanks, what about use of nonpersistant agents as a shock weapon close to frontlines to help a breakthrough ?

The problem here is that you'd really only be able to use said agent a handful of times before your opponent deploys defenses/countermeasures; and you also invite the deployment of similar weapons against your own men. Just look at how quickly the various types of gases deployed in WW I were countered when deployed against an opponent with the ability to mass-produce things like gas masks. In general, chemical weapons make for better terror/anti-civilian weapons than shock weapons against prepared military targets.
 
The expected use of chemicals in a major power war was twofold. In a first blitz against frontline positions with non-persistent agents before even trained troops were in chem gear, non-persistent so that your forces can pass through without too many casualties. The user knows what agents were used and where. The other use was with persistent agents on rear area targets like supply depots, transportation nodes/airfields. This would kill folks who were more likely to be unprotected, and make using those facilities a real pain as well as contaminating supplies and so forth.

In a world where chemicals are being used routinely, a surprise against unprotected troops is unlikely as before a war there are indicators, and first use will be expected. The rear area attacks would, OTL, probably be done by missiles but before missiles air attacks are going to be spotted before they get to targets, allowing even rear area troops to don gear, get in protected locations etc. even missile attacks have warning, and again in a world where chemicals are routine rear area folks would be better prepared.

At best chemical weapons give one side a brief advantage, then they are equally a nuisance for both sides.
 

destiple

Banned
^ How about its use a COIN weapon, I can the see use in # 4,7 and 11 too
as not all states will be well prepared for an all out chemical attack, infact even a country like pakistan or iran will be hard presed to equip their infantry heavy forces with quality CW suits
 
Persistent agents will massively reduce the air sortie rate if airfields are in range of them. Doing the airfield thing is slowed down massively by chemical warfare gear.
 
If for some reason there is no international taboo against using chemical weapons then I suspect you would more than likely see them used in internal conflicts rather than in wars between two sovereign states. Imagine proxy wars but with rebel groups getting hit by chemical weapons supplied by the two super powers. A much uglier, nastier world indeed.
 

destiple

Banned
If for some reason there is no international taboo against using chemical weapons then I suspect you would more than likely see them used in internal conflicts rather than in wars between two sovereign states. Imagine proxy wars but with rebel groups getting hit by chemical weapons supplied by the two super powers. A much uglier, nastier world indeed.
true esp in areas where a minority govt rules over a restive minority
Assad's use of CW in Hama in 1981 comes to mind
 

destiple

Banned
Persistent agents will massively reduce the air sortie rate if airfields are in range of them. Doing the airfield thing is slowed down massively by chemical warfare gear.
Wasn't this the policy of soviets ? I mean this is what I've read they would plan to saturate NATO airfields with CW attacks to delay their air operations
 
Wasn't this the policy of soviets ? I mean this is what I've read they would plan to saturate NATO airfields with CW attacks to delay their air operations
Yes, pretty sure that was part of their WWIII plan to avoid Nato taking air superiority/supremacy. Thing is going chemical is likely to drag some of the other legs of the triad (NBC) into play.
 
In the Iran-Iraq War the Iraqis used chemicals on the Iranians, and especially their irregular troops, and caused some pretty nasty casualties. In spite of that it did not work out well for them. OTL while the Soviets did have considerations for using chemicals on rear area facilities, US doctrine was such that that could very likely open the door for nukes and then all bets are off - especially once the US/NATO had given up chemicals and the only WMD they had to respond with was nukes.
 
In the Iran-Iraq War the Iraqis used chemicals on the Iranians, and especially their irregular troops, and caused some pretty nasty casualties. In spite of that it did not work out well for them. OTL while the Soviets did have considerations for using chemicals on rear area facilities, US doctrine was such that that could very likely open the door for nukes and then all bets are off - especially once the US/NATO had given up chemicals and the only WMD they had to respond with was nukes.

Yes, pretty sure that was part of their WWIII plan to avoid Nato taking air superiority/supremacy. Thing is going chemical is likely to drag some of the other legs of the triad (NBC) into play.

It is not firmly established the Soviets would use NBCs in the opening salvos as they considered themselves to have superiority in conventional land forces at least until the 80s. After that, the USSR changed its stances to defensive. Also, the restrictions on theatre IRBMs by INF treaty reduced Soviet capacity to hit rear areas.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
It is not firmly established the Soviets would use NBCs in the opening salvos as they considered themselves to have superiority in conventional land forces at least until the 80s. After that, the USSR changed its stances to defensive. Also, the restrictions on theatre IRBMs by INF treaty reduced Soviet capacity to hit rear areas.

The Soviets had no plans for conventional war against NATO.
 

destiple

Banned
what kind of agents are "persistant " and which ones are not ? can someone please point to a source ? thanks
 
The Soviets had no plans for conventional war against NATO.

Source, if I may? While Cold War Soviet Plans certainly include nuclear escalation and use of nukes in European Theatre, the US Intelligence Community recognised, in the 70s, the change in Soviet Nuclear Doctrine on tac nuke use and indicated thaat, "The Soviet and their allies would certainly prefer to see any European conflict remain nonnucelar, and they would probably expect to have advantage in such a conflict."(See p. 23 of the pdf linked below)

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000268107.pdf
 
Last edited:
Top