744
8 Modern Weapons: Possibilities and Limitations
Mustard gas was widely used by Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War. Iraq was the first
party to use CA during the Iran–Iraq War and subsequently used them both against
Iran and In operations against the Kurds (according to some sources, CA bought in
Egypt or the USSR were used against the latter as early as in 1973–1975).
We can identify three generations of combat CA:
Chemical weapons of the first generation include four groups of toxic agents:
(1) skin blistering agents (persistent agents: sulfuric and nitrogenous mustard gases,
lewisite)
(2) general toxic agents (non-persistent agent: hydrocyanic acid);
(3) choking agents (non-persistent agents: phosgene, diphosgene);
(4) irritant agents (adamsite, diphenylchloroarsine, chloropicrin, diphenylcyanarsine).
Second generation. It is distinguished by the fact that the three already known CA
groups are supplemented by a new one:
(5) nerve chemical agents.
The third generation is characterized by appearance of a new group of toxic
agents—the so-called temporarily incapacitating. They are psycho-chemical agents
In the 1960s and 1970s, third-generation chemical weapons were developed,
including not only new types of chemical agents with unforeseen mechanisms of
destruction and extremely high toxicity, but also more advanced ways of using
them—cluster chemical munitions, binary chemical weapons, etc.
Technical idea behind binary chemical munitions is that they are equipped with
two or more source components, each of which can be a non-toxic or a low-toxic
substance. During the flight of a projectile, missile, bomb, or another piece of ammunition to the target, original components are mixed in it with formation of the combat
chemical agent as the end product of the chemical reaction. The shell of the projectile
here performs the function of a chemical reactor.
During World War II, neither Germans nor Soviet Union and the allies used
chemical weapons. It found no use either after the World War in multiple local
military conflicts of the second half of the twentieth century. There were attempts,
of course. But these separate scattered cases only indicate that the performance of
chemical attacks was always either equal to zero or so low that no one ever was
tempted to use it again in the current conflict.
Let’s try to understand in detail the true causes of such a cold attitude of the
generals of the Wehrmacht as well as the generals of the Soviet Army, Her Majesty’s
army, the US Army, and all other generals to chemical weapons. Or, to be more
specific, we will consider the main disadvantages of these truly menacing weapons.
Since the authors are amateurs in this issue, we addressed veterans of the Soviet
Army, who occupied technical and command positions in engineering units of the
Soviet Union for many years [1].
8 Modern Weapons: Possibilities and Limitations
Mustard gas was widely used by Iraq during the Iran–Iraq War. Iraq was the first
party to use CA during the Iran–Iraq War and subsequently used them both against
Iran and In operations against the Kurds (according to some sources, CA bought in
Egypt or the USSR were used against the latter as early as in 1973–1975).
We can identify three generations of combat CA:
Chemical weapons of the first generation include four groups of toxic agents:
(1) skin blistering agents (persistent agents: sulfuric and nitrogenous mustard gases,
lewisite)
(2) general toxic agents (non-persistent agent: hydrocyanic acid);
(3) choking agents (non-persistent agents: phosgene, diphosgene);
(4) irritant agents (adamsite, diphenylchloroarsine, chloropicrin, diphenylcyanarsine).
Second generation. It is distinguished by the fact that the three already known CA
groups are supplemented by a new one:
(5) nerve chemical agents.
The third generation is characterized by appearance of a new group of toxic
agents—the so-called temporarily incapacitating. They are psycho-chemical agents
In the 1960s and 1970s, third-generation chemical weapons were developed,
including not only new types of chemical agents with unforeseen mechanisms of
destruction and extremely high toxicity, but also more advanced ways of using
them—cluster chemical munitions, binary chemical weapons, etc.
Technical idea behind binary chemical munitions is that they are equipped with
two or more source components, each of which can be a non-toxic or a low-toxic
substance. During the flight of a projectile, missile, bomb, or another piece of ammunition to the target, original components are mixed in it with formation of the combat
chemical agent as the end product of the chemical reaction. The shell of the projectile
here performs the function of a chemical reactor.
During World War II, neither Germans nor Soviet Union and the allies used
chemical weapons. It found no use either after the World War in multiple local
military conflicts of the second half of the twentieth century. There were attempts,
of course. But these separate scattered cases only indicate that the performance of
chemical attacks was always either equal to zero or so low that no one ever was
tempted to use it again in the current conflict.
Let’s try to understand in detail the true causes of such a cold attitude of the
generals of the Wehrmacht as well as the generals of the Soviet Army, Her Majesty’s
army, the US Army, and all other generals to chemical weapons. Or, to be more
specific, we will consider the main disadvantages of these truly menacing weapons.
Since the authors are amateurs in this issue, we addressed veterans of the Soviet
Army, who occupied technical and command positions in engineering units of the
Soviet Union for many years [1].