Millions have died. Billions are afraid that they may be next. War is the last thing that anyone needs and chemical warfare is todays age. Countries have developed thousands of different chemical weapons, such as adamsite, a sickening agent, tear gas, and malodorants, things that smell so bad that can literally knock you unconscious. There are many downsides to chemical warfare, and even though chemical warfare may have helpful attributes, it will bring the downfall of the human race. This will happen by sickness, terrorism, rebellion, total destruction, and inevitably death. Many believe the same that I do, that if chemical warfare breaks out the whole world could be destroyed. With the use of chemical weapons will come new diseases and sicknesses that the world will not have an antidote or cure. “Not all chemical weapons kill, many of them cause sickness and pain to immobilize the victims.” According to ThinkQuest, in some cases there is bacteria in chemical weapons to create a reaction. These bacteria could spread and would cause more harm than good. Some of these new viruses will not have cures and could cause genetic mutations, which then would be passed on to offspring spreading it even farther. It is not just war that will be affected by chemical weapons, but terrorism to. If these chemical weapons get out terrorist strikes will not just become more frequent, but more deadly too. There have been many cases in which this could have happened. If chemical warfare broke out, terrorists would have more and steadier access to these weapons of mass destruction. Look at the Boston Marathon Bombing from just this past year (2013), if these people got their hands on chemical bombs, then not just a few people would have los... ... middle of paper ... ... would we want create an epidemic just to have to fix it? Chemical warfare is a killer waiting to strike. War takes time, and with chemical warfare that time should. in thought, be quicker. Yes, its true that wars may be quicker with these weapons, but it also will kill millions, possibly billions more. Is it worth to lose billions of lives just to end a war quicker? Not at all! We must remember that these lives are not all military. In World War 2 the civilian to combatant death ratio was 3:2 and in Vietnam it was 2:1. These civilians are just like us. These men, women, and children don;t want to be in war, and yet they would die just because someone decided to use chemical weapons to end this war. Is it justified to kill these people just because we don’t want to lose? That is not the way to think. Chemical warfare is something that nobody should ever experience.
History has proven the use of chemical weapons ranging back for decades. From the Greeks in ancient Europe using Greek fire to South American tribes using a form of tear gas made of grounded up hot chili peppers to scare away enemy tribes. As well as dipping the tips of spear heads with a poisonous toxin. Poisonous toxins used from live reptiles like frogs and venom from the snakes found from whichever region had enough potency venom to exterminate. The past has proven, that in order for Armies to survive and win, it relied on out smarting the enemy. New technologies and the evolution of weaponry were left to the brightest minds from those eras to develop.
The two chemical weapons that were used were: nerve agent and mustard gas. Nerve agent has two main classes that are Class G and Class V. Class V is more new, however less fatal. The specific nerve agent used by the Iraqis is Cyclosarin. Cyclosarin is an extremely toxic substance used as a chemical weapon, which is a member of Class G. Cyclosarin is the most dangerous gas out of both classes. It is known to have a sweet smell and is also flammable unlike other nerve gases. Mustard gas on the other hand is yellow and smells like garlic. Both gases cause death in minutes and have long lasting effects. These can include diseases and other horrible problems. Many of these diseases cannot be cured, for the cells have been damaged and cannot be repaired.
...ive and more powerful if these weapons were in action. With these facts stated, I believe that chemical warfare should be un-ban and affectively used in today’s warfare.
We, as CBRN soldiers, can trace our corps roots back to World War I, where chemical agents were widely used by both the allied and German forces. One chemical used was called mustard gas (H). Mustard gas is a type of blister agent that causes large blister (vesicles) on the skin, lungs and eyes of those exposed to it. According to Heller (1984), when mustard gas was introduced on the battlefield soldiers were unaware that they were even exposed. Unlike other chemicals used at that time (Chlorine or Phosgene) the effects of mustard gas were not readily apparent. According to Namazi, Niknahad, & Razmkhah (2009), those exposed did not feel the effects for 4-8 hours after exposure causing severe injuries. According to Heller (1984), the Germans were the first to use mustard gas in 1917 on British soldiers. When the British soldiers observed the gas shells going off they did not see or smell any gas; therefore, believed that the Germans were trying to trick them. It was not until several hours later did they start complaining that their eyes, throats and lungs hurt. By the time that the United States entered World War I we did not have any protection against the chemicals that were being used on the front lines. According to Heller (1984), “On 6 April 1917, when the U.S. declared war on Germany, the army not only lacked defensive equipment for chemical warfare, but also had no concrete plans to develop or manufacture gas masks or any other defensive equipment” ( pg.38). While the history of our corps is very interesting, I will show the effects mustard gas has on unprotected soldiers and how the first protective equipment has changed to what we are equipped with today.
World War I was beginning of inventing new ways to produce more casualties to the enemy’s force and reduce the probability of losing Soldiers from their own line of defense or offense. They did this by conducting extensive research in chemical warfare. At the same time, it will motivate the troops and win the hearts and minds of the people from their country if they had new ways on ending the war quickly. Chemical warfare affected tactics and techniques of warfare and almost changed the outcome of World War I. (LTG Carl E. Vuono)
Chemical warfare is the use of chemical agents to injure, incapacitate, or kill enemy combatants. First seen during World War I (WWI), the devastating effects of widespread chemical warfare were eventually deemed inhumane by an international consensus and chemical agents were subsequently banned from use. Still, despite the tendency of the modern warrior to overlook antiquated tactics, the threat of chemical agents in the theater of war cannot be entirely discounted by today's Soldier. By analyzing the application, evolution, and overall legacy of chemical weapons in the Great War we can work to minimize the danger they pose in current conflicts and those of the near future. For it is only by understanding the past that we can understand the present and shape tomorrow.
To begin, during World War one Germans first developed poisonous gas and brought them into war by 1915. Chlorine was the first gas brought into trench warfare as a grenade-like projectile. In the beginning of poisonous gas usage, soldiers didn’t know that the poisonous gas existed so the gas cloud unknowingly forming put soldiers into fear and would cause a few casualties. Soon after, France developed phosgene gases that is 18 times more powerful than chlorine gas. In the first appearance of phosgene gas, which was at Ypres, soldiers would get blinded. Germans further developed another gas, mustard gas. Mustard gas was the most brutal and more developed. It was produced in 75 or 105 shells rather than the regular grenade-like projectiles. Mustard gas caused painful blisters internally and externally, burns skin and more. The introduction to mustard gas brought the most disabled soldiers, deaths, terror and overall brought emotional and physical pain to those affected.
Bioterrorism was a powerful deterrent to war because of its rareness, but now almost every country has biological weapons that could wipe ou...
Immediate effects of the chemicals included blindness, vomiting, blisters, convulsions, and asphyxiation. Approximately 5,000 women, men, and children died within days of the attacks. Long-term effects included permanent blindness, cancer, and birth defects. An estimated 10,000 lived, but live daily with the disfigurement and sicknesses from the chemical weapons.
Chemical weapons have been used throughout the world dating back to 430 BC, when they were used against the Spartans in the Peloponnesian War. Although they were not nearly as harmful as they are now, they still had devastating effects. Very little good has ever come from the use of chemical ...
A terrorist attack has occurred. Rescue groups wander through an empty city with seemingly no damage, but death is all around them. They trek through the barren streets in gas masks and hazard suits, for this terrorist attack was not a bombing or a shooting. It was a chemical and biological weapons attack, sending nerve gas and lethal pathogens throughout a city, wiping out its population, but leaving the city untouched. An eerie scenario such as this has potential to occur in the future unless all CBW (chemical and biological weapons) are eliminated. Because of the atrocities CBW’s caused by WWI, a document known as the Geneva Protocol was created to stop the use of CBW’s in war (Lee and Muhinda 1). While the protocol did state that CBW’s
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, chemical warfare is “tactical warfare using incendiary mixtures, smokes, or irritant, burning, poisonous, or asphyxiating gasses.” (Chemical warfare, 2011) It is a temptingly appealing way to dispose of one’s enemies without drawing a sword or lifting a gun. Chemical weapon agents, or CWAs as they are more commonly referred, are classified in five main groups: riot control agents, nerve agents, blister agents, blood agents, and choking agents. Each is devastating on those caught in their paths and, for decades, scientists have worked on creating easier to wield, more lethal types. Today, there are eight countries known to possess chemical weapons (OPCW) but, according to new archaeological discoveries, this may not only be a cause for concern prevalent in the modern world.
In the war this chemical was transported through artillery shells into the battle field where it lingered for an amount of time ranging from days to weeks or even sometimes months, it all was reflected on the weather conditions. Mustard gas wasn’t necessarily used as a forceful killing weapon but was morely used to pollute the battlefield and weaken the enemy. Victims of mustard gas began to experience a painful aching in their eyes, blisters and also proceeded to vomit. Many soldiers were secured to their beds because the whole process was exceedingly painful. This chemical caused a number of different symptoms, internal and external bleeding and attacking the bronchial tubes, stripping off the mucous membrane. Usually it took a person a course of four to five weeks before they died of the mustard gas poisoning. Mustard gas contributed to the event of chemical warfare becoming one of the major components in the war, which is one example of how this weapon changed the nature of the war. During the later on stages of war, gas usage increased majorly and the overall effectiveness decreased. The United Nations adopted the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993 to exterminate the use of mustard gas and other chemical based weapons. I think that chemical weapons were banned because as long as they were continually being used as a large percentage, there would be a risk, especially if they fell into the wrong
Why do countries use chemical weapons on innocent people? I understand there might be a conflict between two sides, but why are the civilians he ones who get affected the most? There is an ongoing debate in Syria regarding who used chemical weapons and who is responsible for the attack. Although Syria’s president and the rebels blame each other for the chemical attack, there is evidence in the ongoing debate that both sides used chemical weapons and the question of who is responsible for the death and destruction it caused.
As the President has made clear, our response will come at a price. One of the costs, which will affect all of us down the road, will be environmental degradation. Depending on where and how we strike, we risk exposing large populations, including our own troops, to lethal toxic substances. We have some experience with the long-term effects of exposing military and civilian personnel to potentially dangerous chemicals such as the defoliant Agent Orange in Vietnam and a variety of toxic agents in the Gulf War. These health effects can be devastating.