The Pros And Cons Of The Chemical Weapons Service

Poison Gas/Chemical Warfare usage, while not harming physical structures preventing the collateral damage of homes and buildings, causes a high casualty rate in all living things. It is indescriminate and robs life equally be they related or not to a target of military or strategic importance. Gas usage has been widely considered uncivilized, but the French resorted to its usage in August, 1914 during the first World War in an attempt to rout the Germans. Unfortunately, the Germans were the first to give gas warfare serious development and it became used extensively before the war was over. On the battlefield it prooved effective in eliminating hostile threats in an inhumane way, but this does not make it morally acceptable. In more recent times ISIS has been reported to using Poison Gas in Syria against both military and civilians in an indescriminate manner. This sort of attack ignores international laws as well as inhumanely cause widespread harm. In this day and age, this sort of attack is unnecessary and is why it was outlawed in the first place even back during the first World War.

Chemical warfare, while horrible, proved to be unwieldy and unpredictable, and relatively easy to counter. After some limited successes against unprepared opponents, the use of chemical gas had very little tactical benefit; the recognition of this limited utility is that after widespread use in 1915 - except for the short-lived effects of the introduction of mustard gas in 1917 - gas was abandoned by both sides as an effective tactic.

Frist of all, in the Second Battle of Ypres, the Germans introduced the first use of poisonous gas. When poison gas first introduced it was a popular weapon choice and would be the weapon to change the outcome of the war. The Germans surprisingly attack the Allies, where the used lethal chloride gas against them. The gas was deadly and killed over one thousand soldiers. (1) It also allowed a significant advanced for the Germans in the war. The gas usage continued to grow throughout the war. In the end, many Allied countries started chemical weapons research. Gas warfare became common but effective actions were used to protect the troops. After World War 1, poison was use for a while but in today’s war it is no longer allowed. Instead of poisonous gas, chemical warfare is used. Chemical weapons come in a variety of forms and are used for several different techniques.

Chemical Warfare was also something that the Americans used that was drastically negative. Many innocent South Vietnam citizens were killed from a chemical called napalm. This jelly like substance stuck to a surface and burned. Much of it was dropped on villages

The Second Battle of Ypres took place from April 22nd to May 25th 1915 and is distinguishable for Canadians as being the first battle in which Canadians troops fought in during the First World War. The battle marked the first Canadian victory and has become popularly known as the first site of mass use of chlorine gas on the Western Front. But the battle does not have to exist solely in the confines of the First World War. The battle and its effects impacted not only the immediate outcome of the war but rather spurred a shift in war tactics and Canadian enthusiasm to its troops. Essentially, the Second Battle of Ypres was vital to the First World War because of its maintained the strategic placement for the Western allies, but it is also important in a wider context through its ability to set a precedent for future battles with modern chemical warfare, and through the effect it had on the home front to boost Canadian support overseas. To begin, I will first summarize the battle and the context Ypres to give an overall understanding of the situation leading into the battle. In suit, I will examine the strategic advantage Ypres had with respect to its ability to protect the ports of northern Europe and its establishment of a buffer zone between Great Britain and Germany. Secondly, I will examine the battle as a pivotal moment for the future of modern warfare as the Germans breeched international code with their use of chlorine gas. Thirdly, I will demonstrate how the

The war in Vietnam was, and continues to be, one of the most controversial hot button topics in American history. The military’s use of dangerous pesticides, like Agent Orange, is a major part of this controversy. Agent Orange is a defoliant that was widely used to deforest dense jungle areas to reduce both hiding places and food sources for the Vietnamese. During the war, American B-52 bombers released over nineteen million gallons of Agent Orange over the Vietnamese countryside. After ten years of continuous dumping, 1971 finally marked the end of America’s use of Agent Orange and other herbicides. In 1974, the United States government, headed by Richard Nixon, swore the country would never again use chemical weapons in a first strike. (Levy and Scott-Clark)

The first World war chemical weapons were used then outlawed for combat. “Unlike when the U.S. was the only nuclear power and first used the technology against Japan without fear of reciprocation” ( The Ch.1 The Dangers). As a country we didn’t know the effects of a bomb on a living city, but now we know the consequences. Now what

The purpose of this essay is to deal with the fact that chemical warfare should be brought back to modern warfare strategies. As Warren Rudman said, “And they will tell you unequivocally that if we have a chemical or biological attack or a nuclear attack anywhere in this country, they are unprepared to deal with it today, and that is of high urgency.” Rudman’s words are true in what they say and that we should do everything to counter-act his statement. Biological weapons are a key to outstanding success in war and therefore, I strongly suggest that chemical warfare is an effective and producible weapon tactic that can be used on today’s battlefield.

These are just a few examples of many accounts of the use of chemical and biological agents in war.

American army officer Omar Bradley once said,“If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner.” The meaning of this quote lies in the destruction and devastation of humanity and geography during war. If we do not stop advancing in ways of killing and causing suffering, we will soon face the consequences of these technologies. Throughout World War I and World War II, there was a ginormous technological boom in which countries were competing to invent new weapons or vehicles used in warfare. Specifically, World War I could be blamed for the start of the creating of new technologies used in warfare even today. These technologies were often invented or created during World War I,

Based on this week’s course material coupled with my assessment of the idea that terrorists are more likely to obtain and employ biological weapons as compared to nuclear weapons, I believe there is a good chance that a biological attack is much more feasible than a nuclear event. First, a gun style weapon producing a small and somewhat crude nuclear yield is relatively easy to make with sufficient amounts of fissile material, but the main problem is gaining the appropriate nuclear fuel. An example of this simplicity, the first bomb dropped over Hiroshima in 1945 known as “Little Boy” was not even tested because the designers were so confident in it (Nuclear Weapon Design, 1998, non-paginated). Regardless of this feature, the acquisition of approximately 50 kg of highly enriched Uranium is needed to produce a successful device (Nuclear Weapon Design, 1998, non-paginated). Since acquisition of sufficient quantities of highly enriched U-235 is

Given the difficulties to acquire and develop of biological weapons, the DHS likely saw the acquisition of the REBS as unnecessary. Obtaining a successful biological program is difficult as seen with past attempts by governments. Both the United States and Russia were two of the best equipped countries to develop such weaponry and devoted plentiful resources to their programs. Even with the large influx money, both countries encountered difficult hurdles (Parachini, 2001). If a terrorist organization were to obtain a biological weapon, the support of a state government would be needed. The multiple barriers needed to acquire biological weapons coupled with cheaper, more accessible options dissuades terrorists from perusing biological

Chemical weapons are toxic gases, which use in the wars such as World War 1. Chemical weapons used in First World War and they killed a lot of people even children. In addition, chemical weapons are unless color, so people can’t see them. Also, most of people who died through the First World War were civilians. Therefore, who were responsible about them? In addition, people who survived had dangerous and permanent diseases such as cancer, asthma … etc. Even people’s genes effected by these toxic gases and they cause a lot of genetic problems that appeared in a second generation. Even soldiers who were pushed to this war. Then, they died or effected who were responsible about their families. In addition chemical weapons burned a lot of trees and they changed plant characteristics. Also, these gases can react with others to change air and weather characteristics. Therefore, chemical weapons effect on our

This week’s reading material was reviewed objectively and based on the information, terrorists appear more likely to attack with biological than nuclear or chemical. Considering nuclear is a growing concern with recently acquired material, the build would ultimately need testing to determine if function meets intent. Learning of the cost of testing may steer terrorists away from nuclear and more towards biological.

The threat from of deadly gasses was first used by, Nazi Germany back in the First World War. It was used at the battle of Ypres, the Germans released the gas so that the wind would take it towards the enemy. “The vapor clinging to the earth seeking out every hole and hollow and filling the trenches and shell holes as it came.”(Brown, Chemical Warfare, 1) And sense the battle fields were full of trenches it ended up doing a lot of damage to the allies it was estimated that nearly 1 million soldiers were affected from World War I was from these type of attacks. All though the casualty rating of this weapon did not deter the warring nations to hide this weapon away: