WI: The Gassing of Grozny

Throughout both Chechen Wars, both Russia and the Chechens accused the other of preparing to use or making limited use of chemical weapons, though no conclusive proof has surfaced.

What if Russia had launched a massive chemical attack against Chechen forces in either one of the Chechen Wars? What would the difference in effects be if the strike had been launched in 1995 as opposed to in 1999? How would the 1996 and 2000 Russian presidential elections, respectively, (and U.S., for that matter) be effected by the attack? How severe would the international response be to such an event? Would the world have stuck with sanctions, or could they have gone one further and granted Chechnya international recognition? Would 1990s Russia have been able to survive a harsh world response?
 
Russia using weapons of mass destruction on a populated city would most certainly have severe international consequences. I can only imagine that opponents of NATO expansion, for instance, will become that much quieter.

But why would it do that, using indiscriminate weapons potentially killing tens of thousands of Russian citizens? To the best of my knowledge, the Soviet Union did not use chemical weapons before. Why would it do so now?
 
Besides accusations in Afghanistan, RSFSR did use gas against the Tambov Rebellion.

In 1921. Meanwhile, nothing has been confirmed about Afghanistan.

The gassing of Grozny would represent a marked escalation for no particular reason. Why would Yeltsin, or anyone in the Russian military, countenance the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians?

This might be possible if Russia has an even worse 1990s, and is run by worse people.
 
In 1921. Meanwhile, nothing has been confirmed about Afghanistan.

The gassing of Grozny would represent a marked escalation for no particular reason. Why would Yeltsin, or anyone in the Russian military, countenance the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilians?

This might be possible if Russia has an even worse 1990s, and is run by worse people.
Not saying Russia would, just pointing out historical facts.

And frankly, I would say something along the lines of Siberia secessionist movements would be required for the mere possible use of WMDs to come out.
 
Not saying Russia would, just pointing out historical facts.

Sure. 1921 is such a long time ago, though. It's far enough back that one might almost say France would use chemical weapons against Corsicans based on France's First World War history.

And frankly, I would say something along the lines of Siberia secessionist movements would be required for the mere possible use of WMDs to come out.

It would certainly take a more serious existential threat than post-Soviet Russia has faced, unless this is a Russia that has opted for very bad post-Communist options.

Russia would be a pariah state and once again be the go to boogey man for western sabre rattling.

Eh. The only other country in my lifetime that has used chemical weapons against civilian populations is Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and look at what eventually happened to that man and his government. A major power that engaged in like atrocities against its own civilian populations might escape invasion, but it would not escape a profoundly negative international reaction.
 
Most of the former USSR's successor states would rapidly abandon the NPT and develop nuclear weapons. The Budapest Memorandum would be exposed as worthless and people like Mearsheimer would be listened to
 

Cook

Banned
But why would it do that, using indiscriminate weapons potentially killing tens of thousands of Russian citizens?

How does this differ from the use of cluster bomb and thermobaric munitions on a city whose inhabitants were, or so Moscow claimed, Russian citizens? Russian armed forces used both unrelentingly in their attacks on Grozny and killed some 35,000 civilians in the process.
 
How does this differ from the use of cluster bomb and thermobaric munitions on a city whose inhabitants were, or so Moscow claimed, Russian citizens? Russian armed forces used both unrelentingly in their attacks on Grozny and killed some 35,000 civilians in the process.

The same reason we bombed Syria when they used sarin as opposed to cluster bombs and thermobarics.

While the Chemical Wapons Convention would only be a year old in this scenario, there's still a major international disgust for chem warfare. They're perceived as a particularly terrible way to die, and as such countries who use such weapons are generally
treated more severely than those that use conventional munitions to accomplish the same goal.
 
Last edited:
The same reason we bombed Syria when they used sarin as opposed to cluster bombs and thermobarics.

While the Chemical Wapons Convention would only be a year old in this scenario, there's still a major international disgust for chem warfare. They're perceived as a particularly terrible way to die, and as such countries who use such weapons are generally
treated more severely than those that use conventional munitions to accomplish the same goal.
Yep. Though it's a rather blatant double standard; why is sulphur mustard or Soman worse than phosphorous or gelled petroleum?
 
Yep. Though it's a rather blatant double standard; why is sulphur mustard or Soman worse than phosphorous or gelled petroleum?

It boils down to quantity. I'm not going to die if I spill a few drops of gasoline on my hand after filling up the car. I most certainly will die if I get even a drop or two of Sarin or VX exposure.

It's also the difference between a fire burning a city down and salting the earth of said city.
 
It boils down to quantity. I'm not going to die if I spill a few drops of gasoline on my hand after filling up the car. I most certainly will die if I get even a drop or two of Sarin or VX exposure.

It's also the difference between a fire burning a city down and salting the earth of said city.
Maybe, but a few fragments of WP will do serious, even permanent, injury burning through flesh and fire spreads. Plus the phosphorous pentoxide is as dangerous as many CW vesicants.
 
The issue about chem warfare definitions has to do with the fact that they are specifically defined as POISONS and as such there has been an aversion to them in "civilized" warfare for some time, well before gas warfare occurred. Napalm is an incendiary, and fire weapons (including flame throwers) had been used for a long time. WP was designed as a smoke/obscurant weapon, using it as an antipersonnel weapon came later. Finally, as noted, both napalm and WP do their thing and its over pretty quickly. Chemical weapons can be acutely deadly/dangerous for quite some time, and even quite long term can poison the ground - many examples of this are noted.
 
Top