8.1 A Brief History of Weapons
747
area. But chemical weapons absolutely depend on weather conditions—the ones that
are almost impossible to predict.
And there is no doubt that the use of chemical agents requires a lot of firepower.
It is necessary to unleash hundreds and thousands of tons of chemical agents on the
enemy within the shortest terms possible.
Will the commander agree to reduce the firepower to such extent in exchange
for the problematic possibility of poisoning several thousands of enemy troops? The
higher command and the government require him to attack the enemy in a specific
location on a specifically indicated time, which the chemists cannot guarantee.
Second: specifics of producing chemical agents and charging ammunition with
them. Unlike any other military production, production of chemical agents, and
ammunition loading is very expensive and even more harmful and dangerous. It is
extremely difficult to achieve complete air tightness of chemical ammunition, and
it is impossible to make them safe enough during handling and storage as can be
done with any other types of ammunition. If a charged artillery shell, for example,
is stored and transported without a fuse, it is as dangerous as an iron dummy; if it is
cracked or rusty, it can be easily withdrawn and exploded at a landfill, i.e., disposed
of. All these actions are impossible in case with a chemical projectile. Once filled
with an AC, it becomes lethal and remains so until disposed of, which is also a serious
problem. It means that chemical projectiles are as dangerous for the allies as for the
enemies; they often start killing civilians of the attacking side without even getting
to the enemy troops.
Third: every day, thousands of tons of various reserves, from sliding blocks to
missiles, are supplied from support facilities to the front. All this is immediately spent,
and there are usually no noticeable reserves of all these shells, bombs, missiles, and
ammunitions in military units. Chemical ammunition, on the other hand, will have
to wait for favorable conditions to be used. Therefore, the armies will be forced to
keep large stocks of chemical ammunition that are extremely dangerous in handling,
constantly move them from one place to another (modern warfare is characterized by high mobility of troops), assign special divisions for their protection, and
create special conditions for their safety. Transporting all these thousands of tons of
dangerous goods with a clouded outlook of achieving an extremely limited tactical
success with chemical agents (the use of chemical weapons never gave a quick result
even during the First World War) would hardly appeal to any commander.
And the last thing: As the military knows, the purpose of using any weapon is
not to destroy as many enemy soldiers as possible, but to bring the enemy into
such a state that he cannot resist, i.e., a weapon is a means of bending an opponent
to one’s will. This is often achieved not by killing troops, but by destroying and
disabling material resources (tanks, planes, guns, missiles, etc.) and facilities
(bridges, roads, enterprises, residential buildings, covers, etc.). When an enemy
unit or division loses its tanks, guns, machine guns, and grenades and cannot receive
the supplies, this unit or division inevitably either retreats or surrenders, which is the
purpose of a battle. At the same time, even a single surviving machine gunner with a
sufficient stock of ammunition can hold a significant area for a long time. Chemical
agents, in turn, cannot destroy even a motorbike, let alone a tank. If a regular projectile
747
area. But chemical weapons absolutely depend on weather conditions—the ones that
are almost impossible to predict.
And there is no doubt that the use of chemical agents requires a lot of firepower.
It is necessary to unleash hundreds and thousands of tons of chemical agents on the
enemy within the shortest terms possible.
Will the commander agree to reduce the firepower to such extent in exchange
for the problematic possibility of poisoning several thousands of enemy troops? The
higher command and the government require him to attack the enemy in a specific
location on a specifically indicated time, which the chemists cannot guarantee.
Second: specifics of producing chemical agents and charging ammunition with
them. Unlike any other military production, production of chemical agents, and
ammunition loading is very expensive and even more harmful and dangerous. It is
extremely difficult to achieve complete air tightness of chemical ammunition, and
it is impossible to make them safe enough during handling and storage as can be
done with any other types of ammunition. If a charged artillery shell, for example,
is stored and transported without a fuse, it is as dangerous as an iron dummy; if it is
cracked or rusty, it can be easily withdrawn and exploded at a landfill, i.e., disposed
of. All these actions are impossible in case with a chemical projectile. Once filled
with an AC, it becomes lethal and remains so until disposed of, which is also a serious
problem. It means that chemical projectiles are as dangerous for the allies as for the
enemies; they often start killing civilians of the attacking side without even getting
to the enemy troops.
Third: every day, thousands of tons of various reserves, from sliding blocks to
missiles, are supplied from support facilities to the front. All this is immediately spent,
and there are usually no noticeable reserves of all these shells, bombs, missiles, and
ammunitions in military units. Chemical ammunition, on the other hand, will have
to wait for favorable conditions to be used. Therefore, the armies will be forced to
keep large stocks of chemical ammunition that are extremely dangerous in handling,
constantly move them from one place to another (modern warfare is characterized by high mobility of troops), assign special divisions for their protection, and
create special conditions for their safety. Transporting all these thousands of tons of
dangerous goods with a clouded outlook of achieving an extremely limited tactical
success with chemical agents (the use of chemical weapons never gave a quick result
even during the First World War) would hardly appeal to any commander.
And the last thing: As the military knows, the purpose of using any weapon is
not to destroy as many enemy soldiers as possible, but to bring the enemy into
such a state that he cannot resist, i.e., a weapon is a means of bending an opponent
to one’s will. This is often achieved not by killing troops, but by destroying and
disabling material resources (tanks, planes, guns, missiles, etc.) and facilities
(bridges, roads, enterprises, residential buildings, covers, etc.). When an enemy
unit or division loses its tanks, guns, machine guns, and grenades and cannot receive
the supplies, this unit or division inevitably either retreats or surrenders, which is the
purpose of a battle. At the same time, even a single surviving machine gunner with a
sufficient stock of ammunition can hold a significant area for a long time. Chemical
agents, in turn, cannot destroy even a motorbike, let alone a tank. If a regular projectile