Hacker News Reader

Comment by thedance | Hacker News Reader

Why aren't chemical weapons (for example VX) effective area denial weapons? They seem damned good for the purpose.

He addressed that in the article really well. He argues modern, well trained, armies that constantly move with devolved command structures can't effectively use chemical weapons, and on top of that if fighting against a comparable opponent chemical weapon protection is cheap. Even when under existential threat those type of armies haven't used them.

Temporarily denying an area doesn't work with a mobile army, you might deny yourself an opening or you might not even know where your units are.

But poorly trained armies, with no independent command because of the coup potential can kind of use them as they get into 'static' fights, and have done, i.e. Iraq and Syria.

It really is an excellent article, though long, I would recommend reading it.

And it really drives the point home that the idea we got civilized and banned them is a fuzzy PR lie we tell ourselves.

For a VX-contaminated area, you can put your troops in NBC-ready vehicles (which most of your vehicles are) and simply drive through it. You can't do that for a minefield.

Because they deny the area to you as well. Cleaning up a minefield is child's play compared to dealing with nerve agents.

No. Minefield can persist dangerous for decades. Nerve gas dissipates is days/weeks. Nerve agents might clear the ground tactically, but they don't hold it.

Ah, I should provide context.

From a tactical perspective, the minefield is easy to clear.

In terms of long-term effects, the mines are definitely worse. We are still finding mines from World War II all over Europe, and it’s a huge problem in Korea as well.

No. From a tactical perspective, minefields are very difficult to clear, especially in the short term to achieve tactical objectives. That's why they're effective. The fact they're dangerous decades later shows it's not easy.

Minefields are also very hard to deploy they take about as much to setup as to clear.

No. Completely untrue. Minefields can be deployed by air drop or artillery over wide areas in a moment. Google FASCAM, or cluster munitions, for example.

It hasn't been exclusively some guys burying them one by one by hand since WW1.

There are solid/liquid forms that persist for much much longer. Look at the efforts UK went through to clean up after the chemical attack in Salisbury (which was a liquid in a perfume bottle).

Interesting. I thought the extended cleanup was because the agent was derived from more stable precursors (binary agent), plus the normal overreaction to 'OMFG NERVE GAS'. But the (not conclusive) Wikipedia says the resultant agent is potent for 'years'. I doubt that kind of chemistry stays potent for that long in the wild, but it's by no means my area to judge. I don't think it changes the strategic or tactical view, but yeah...the thought of a year persistent toxic dead zone is unpleasant.

Even the most long-lasting ones will still evaporate in a few weeks. (Of course, if it's inside a bottle it will not evaporate, and if it's inside a city you probably want to decontaminate it rather than wait).

It's a bit hard to say for sure since it is all classified info for the most part. This article cites one of the creators for claiming it could last for years https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/novichok-nerve-ag...

This is an argument against area denial doctrine, not an argument against chemical weapons as agents of area denial.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com