Comments on: Chemical Weapons? What Chemical Weapons?

By: MBT Shoes Cheap

MBT Shoes Cheap — Thu, 17 May 2012 14:08:41 +0000

Hi there! Today with America online.It is really extensive plus it forced me to a whole lot. Continue on the good deliver the results!

By: top

top — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 17:59:34 +0000

CS was used in Viet Nam in tunnel ops, usually not very effectively, but used anyway…

By: Neil Davison

Neil Davison — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 11:22:06 +0000

History provides a clear warning. Every confirmed use of lethal chemical weapons began with the use of ‘tear gas’ (WWI, Iran-Iraq war, etc.)
One of the best summaries of the dangers associated with 1) expansion of military use of RCAs and 2) military interest in other incapacitating toxic (bio)chemicals, can be found in the CBW Conventions Bulletin from September 2003 (Issue No. 61, pages 1–2):
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/hsp/cbwcb61.pdf
One of the most striking ironies surrounding this issue is that continuing military interest in chemical weapons runs in direct opposition to the political importance given to preventing the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons. If not hypocrisy, it is gross foolishness.

By: Lally Singh

Lally Singh — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 06:03:17 +0000

As for what the enemy does and what US soldiers do, there’s a reason they’re called ‘terrorists’ and not soldiers.
Like it or not, it has a higher responsibility. It’s critical that that’s remembered.

By: Major Bill

Major Bill — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 02:35:39 +0000

DS,
Thanks for the update (and the love :) ).
J,
As far as the use of CS in Viet Nam goes, I’m afraid that I have no knowledge of that. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, I just haven’t heard about it.
My experience with the restrictions on tear gas dates back to the late 80s when I was in OCS. However, I certainly had it used on me on more than one occasion in training dating back to my days as an Air Force enlisted man in the late 70s.
and continuing on to my Army training.
Sincerely,
Major Bill

By: txmnea91046

txmnea91046 — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 18:45:10 +0000

Beheading captives is not allowed under the Geneva Conventions but our armed forces cannot permit a captive to be uncomfortable.….

By: J.

J. — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 16:29:29 +0000

MAJ Bill — absolutely wrong. We used tons of CS powder in Vietnam and we had no compunctions about who else would use it. It was the political fallout after Nam that caused Pres Ford to impose the presidential authorization requirement to use RCAs in combat. It was political pandering, not arms control related.
OTOH, David Hambling is 100% right. I cannot believe these idiots would open this can of worms. Baddddd.

By: DS

DS — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 14:13:59 +0000

Major Bill,
DS was attempting to comment on an issue that he remembered as causing a huge stir a wile back… one involving reports of 120mm white phosphorus (WP) mortar rounds being used offensively in Iraq. Unfortunately, DS incorrectly remembered flares instead of smoke, has had quite a busy schedule during the past year or two, and wasn’t able to catch the follow up articles showing that these reports were inaccurate. DS formally apologizes to the entire DefenseTech community for any misunderstanding, and would like to state that he loves ‘Major Bill’ as a fellow DefenseTech fan…
:)

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 12:20:23 +0000

The problem can be summed up in one word: Fentanyl

By: Major Bill

Major Bill — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 19:33:16 +0000

I’m not quite sure what DS was attempting to say there, maybe DS can clear it up.
However, I would like to point out that one of the reasons we were prohibited from using tear gas in offensive operations was that the Soviet Union considered it a chemical weapon. Their policy at the time was “no first use of chemical weapons”. Had we found ourselves involved in a war with them we were concerned that the use of tear gas could lead to a response by the Soviets with lethal chemical agents.