The War Against Human And Insect Enemies

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.

Throughout his essay, Suzuki supports his arguments with specific examples. To justify his reasoning, the author uses the case of DDT, otherwise known as dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. This chemical compound is used as an insecticide to eliminate the population of malaria-carrying mosquitoes, which it did effectively, and saved millions of lives. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, complications arose, which led to an increase in chemicals and caused a domino effect of

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.

The first World War has been reported to be one of the most brutal wars in the history of time for many reasons. One of those reasons was strategic usage of chemical warfare. Chemical gas was used on both sides of the line, which turned out to be fatal for many. World War I was mostly fought in the trenches, where soldiers lived in deep, v-shaped holes or underground bunkers. Both sides would occupy these trenches in order to escape from the constant stream of bullets. These battles often ended in a standoff, or tie, which helped the introduction of a different, brand new style of fighting that included the use of chemicals. These chemicals had a range of

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.

In 17 chapters, many of which can stand alone as essays, Carson develops a deceptively simple premise: the use and overuse of synthetic chemicals to control insect pests introduces these chemicals into the air, water, and soil and into the food chain where they poison animals and humans, and disrupt the many intricate

The German Army was the first to use mustard gas effectively against the British soldiers in 1917, near Ypres in World War One. Mustard gas was dispersed as aerial bombs, mortar rounds, artillery shells, land mines, as an aerosol, and rockets. Mustard gas was only lethal in about one percent of cases. Soldiers wore gas masks, but this didn’t protect them from the gas, since the gas could be absorbed through their clothes. Mustard gas would stay the stay in the environment for days, and continue to cause

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.

War, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is “A state of armed conflict between different nations or states or different groups within a nation or state” (citation). War truly does bring out the worst of in the people involved, because in war the objective is to kill or capture enough of the opposing sides’ soldiers to show that your side is superior. Both sides will take any measures necessary to win, a few examples of this being Mustard gas, Ricin, Agent Orange, and Sarin . When guns and other weapons will not cut it, that’s when in the mind of the governments that chemical warfare became necessary . Since these four chemicals and many more have been used throughout history, the Chemical Warfare Convention banned all forms of chemical weapons, due to the lasting effects of the chemicals on both nations and individuals of those nations. The way the CWC defines a chemical weapon is a toxic chemical or its precursor that can cause death, injury, temporary incapacitation or sensory irritation through its chemical action.

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

On April 1915, The first poison gas attack began when the German forces shocked the Allied forces along the Western Front by firing more than 150 tonnes of lethal chlorine gas against two French colonial divisions at Ypres, Belgium (History.com Staff, 2010). Poison gas was the most feared of all weapons in World War One. Poison gas was used in the trenches even when there was no attack going on. If a Soldiers got trapped with poison gas, it would mean that soldiers have to put a crude gas mask (Figure 1) on because it helped protect the soldiers from inhaling airborne pollutants and toxic gases. Poison gas can leave the victim in agony for days and weeks before they succumbed to their injuries.

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

If people were not able to open their own backdoor and see the results Carson was describing, this book would have probably never been what it is today. In the second chapter, she compares the use of these chemicals to nuclear war, which at the time was a threat that people seemed to understand. “People are very worried about the threat of a nuclear war destroying the planet. They should think about the use of these chemicals that are being poured into the environment. These chemicals get into the tissues of plants and animals.” (Carson). This at the time would’ve been a good way to get into the minds of people. Also in this chapter she gets into explaining the history of insects and how they even become a “problem” to people in the United States. This relates well to some of the discussions we had in class about people’s views on the environment.

All over the world the demand for food is increasing. The human population is anticipated to grow from six billion in 2000 to nine billion in 2050. Meat production is predicted to double within the same amount, as demand grows from rising wealth. Pastures and fodder already deplete seventy percent of all agricultural land, therefore increasing livestock production would need increasing agricultural land area at the expense of rain forests and different natural lands. Officers at the United Nations Food associated Agriculture Organization recently predicted that beef might become an extreme luxury item by 2050, like caviar, as a result of rising production prices. Edible insects have long been used by ethnic groups in Asia, Africa, Mexico and South America as cheap and sustainable sources of protein, and the major role of entomophagy in human food security is well-documented. Up to 2,086 species are consumed by 3,071 ethnic groups in 130 countries. While more attention is needed to fully assess the potential of edible insects, they provide a natural source of essential carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals and vitamins and offer an opportunity to bridge the gap in protein consumption between poor and wealthy nations but also to lessen the Ecological footprint. Some argue that the combination of increasing land use pressure, climate change, and food grain shortages due to the use of corn as a biofuel feedstock will cause serious challenges for attempts to meet future