Chemical incapacitants as weapons?

9.414

War Hero
Maybe by todays standards in wrong, but in the past people were far less likely to give a shit.
It is a valid question to ask why the idea was shit canned.
I agree and gave him an answer in 9 minutes from the OP's post.

I thought I gave a very accurate, albeit flippant, set of reasons why the idea would be binned. The moment some bright spark came up with the idea, any time after Nuremburg, either the commander or the commander's legal advisor would remind the bright spark that not only would the bright spark get hung, but so would the commander. Anybody carrying out the act and claiming "I was only obeying orders" would join them on the gallows.

All other responses appear to agree with my response. Chemical weapons of any sort are always going to cause all sorts of awkward problems when and wherever used.
 
I agree and gave him an answer in 9 minutes from the OP's post.

I thought I gave a very accurate, albeit flippant, set of reasons why the idea would be binned. The moment some bright spark came up with the idea, any time after Nuremburg, either the commander or the commander's legal advisor would remind the bright spark that not only would the bright spark get hung, but so would the commander. Anybody carrying out the act and claiming "I was only obeying orders" would join them on the gallows.

All other responses appear to agree with my response. Chemical weapons of any sort are always going to cause all sorts of awkward problems when and wherever used.

Didnt really prevent the UK prepping for sarin use though did it?

Its not really sporting to firebomb civvies but the UK did it in WW2 so its not a stretch to imagine it would have used chemical weapons if it felt like it afterwards.
 

Tyk

LE
Didnt really prevent the UK prepping for sarin use though did it?

Its not really sporting to firebomb civvies but the UK did it in WW2 so its not a stretch to imagine it would have used chemical weapons if it felt like it afterwards.

All the major and quite possibly some of the minor combatants in WW2 prepped to be attacked by and retaliate with large stockpiles of chemical weapons, like had happened in WW1, but none were used.

Compared to your usual that's a feeble attempt at upsetting people.
 
All the major and quite possibly some of the minor combatants in WW2 prepped to be attacked by and retaliate with large stockpiles of chemical weapons, like had happened in WW1, but none were used.

Compared to your usual that's a feeble attempt at upsetting people.

So why did the UK make 20 tons of sarin after the war? For a laugh?
 

RaiderBoat

Old-Salt
@PetroHead is such an obvious sockpuppet it's comical. Just a case of when the mask slips enough to see the puppeteer.

Makes claims to impossible and/or implausible things and has an interest in drugs, women and the USA is what we've got so far for identification.
The US denies any knowledge or support of this Mullethead.

Just in case...
 

Tyk

LE
So why did the UK make 20 tons of sarin after the war? For a laugh?

For the same reason that all nations with serious militaries did, just in case. It was the 1970's when actually having them (not deploying) was really banned. The UK was only one of very many states that had chemical weapon stockpiles and development post WW2. Do try harder.
 
For the same reason that all nations with serious militaries did, just in case. It was the 1970's when actually having them (not deploying) was really banned. The UK was only one of very many states that had chemical weapon stockpiles and development post WW2. Do try harder.

So they had a plan to use these weapons even though they were illegal and using them would result in people going to the gallows yadda yadda yadda?

I dont have to try hard, you make my point for me, maybe you should think before posting.
 
For the same reason that all nations with serious militaries did, just in case. It was the 1970's when actually having them (not deploying) was really banned. The UK was only one of very many states that had chemical weapon stockpiles and development post WW2. Do try harder.
We were churning the stuff out at Nancekuke in Cornwall until the 1970s
 

Tyk

LE
So they had a plan to use these weapons even though they were illegal and using them would result in people going to the gallows yadda yadda yadda?

I dont have to try hard, you make my point for me, maybe you should think before posting.

You're trying to rile people in your usual manner, but you're being rather bad at it today.

The stockpiles prior to the 1970's were contingencies for all out hostilities and retaliation and the international agreements to actually destroy the existing stockpiles and delivery systems didn't come in until 1990 something.
The contingencies they were designed for were what the hell, all bets are off ones, as you damn well know, not oh I fancy lobbing a few at a small local conflict.
 
You're trying to rile people in your usual manner, but you're being rather bad at it today.

The stockpiles prior to the 1970's were contingencies for all out hostilities and retaliation and the international agreements to actually destroy the existing stockpiles and delivery systems didn't come in until 1990 something.
The contingencies they were designed for were what the hell, all bets are ones, as you damn well know, not oh I fancy lobbing a few at a small local conflict.

I see, the Genera convention doesnt apply when you are retaliating?

Anything else you want to make up?
 
Prove it.

Prove what? The Geneva convention doesnt stop applying just because the enemy does something extreme.
How do you not know that? If the enemy shoot POWs does the British Army start murdering the POWs in their care?
 

Tyk

LE
Prove that what I said previously about contingencies was made up.
You knew that, but you chose to ignore it.
 
Prove that what I said previously about contingencies was made up.
You knew that, but you chose to ignore it.

You need to deflect better.

To clarify you are saying the UK would have ignored the Geneva convention if it suited it?

Which makes the claim the UK wouldnt have used chemical weapons to be utter bollocks doesnt it?
 

Tyk

LE
You need to deflect better.

To clarify you are saying the UK would have ignored the Geneva convention if it suited it?

Which makes the claim the UK wouldnt have used chemical weapons to be utter bollocks doesnt it?

Do try harder.

Of course the UK would have used them in extremis or they wouldn't have been developed and stockpiled. That's what the word contingency means.
Not going to quote myself, but I did post that the contingencies were all bets are off retaliation scenarios where the Geneva Convention would mean sod all.

Still I'm sure you're right and will have the last word, you always are and always do, it's your reason for being on ARRSE after all.
 
Do try harder.

Of course the UK would have used them in extremis or they wouldn't have been developed and stockpiled. That's what the word contingency means.
Not going to quote myself, but I did post that the contingencies were all bets are off retaliation scenarios where the Geneva Convention would mean sod all.

Still I'm sure you're right and will have the last word, you always are and always do, it's your reason for being on ARRSE after all.

So all the talk about not using them because the person who did would go to the gallows was in fact wrong?

Which is what I said before you decided to jump in and gob off.
 
Prove what? The Geneva convention doesnt stop applying just because the enemy does something extreme.
How do you not know that? If the enemy shoot POWs does the British Army start murdering the POWs in their care?
We did in Normandy - in partick in the 3rd Canadian Div area. Nobody ever charged, though the bloke on the other side (Kurt Meyer) was tried and sentenced to death. (Commuted)
 
We did in Normandy - in partick in the 3rd Canadian Div area. Nobody ever charged, though the bloke on the other side (Kurt Meyer) was tried and sentenced to death. (Commuted)

I was thinking about the modern times, apparently the UK obeys the Geneva convention unless it doesnt want to.
 
So why did the UK make 20 tons of sarin after the war? For a laugh?

Anti-tank shells.

The worry was that the Russians had gotten ahead in the armour race, and due to lack of funding we still had large numbers of 17-pounders in service. Porton Down figured, why go through the armour, when you can go around it?
Result, they test fired 17-Lbr HE rounds filled with Sarin to smash against a tanks turret (I've got a series of stills from the tests).

Remember, at this time the UK fully expected to be in a nuclear brickbat exchange with the Soviet Union from day 1, with all weapons being used by both sides. The concept of a limited war didn't show up until much later on.

BTW: On the subject of Chemical weapons, if you want a giggle go read Paxman's 'A higher form of Killing'. It's actually a very funny mix of fact and fiction. Some of the stuff coming from the other side of the Iron Curtain is a bit 'you what?'. Then you get to the acknowledgements and you see why its so moon bat crazy. It is a very real example of the way people thought back then though.
 
Top