Side issue: should the military effectiveness of bombs be measured by the death toll?
I tentatively suggest that atomic and nuclear bombs are of a different kind than chemical explosives, as shown by the former changing the world politically.
I’m not sure exactly why—it may have been the shock of novelty.
Atom and nuclear bombs combine explosion, fire, and poison, but I see no reason to think there would have have been the same sort of wide spread revulsion against chemical explosives, and the world outlawed poison gas in WWI and just kept on going with chemical explosives.
I tentatively suggest that atomic and nuclear bombs are of a different kind than chemical explosives, as shown by the former changing the world politically.
I’m not sure exactly why—it may have been the shock of novelty.
Chemical explosives changed the world politically, just longer ago. Particularly when they put the chemicals in a confined area and put lead pellets on top...
I think that when both sides use poison gas in warfare, the net effect is that everyone’s soldiers end up having to fight while wearing rubber suits, which offer an effective defense against gas but are damn inconvenient to fight in. So it just ends up making things worse for everyone. Furthermore, being the first to use poison gas, before your enemy starts to defend against it and retaliate in kind, doesn’t really provide that big of an advantage. In the end, I guess that the reason gas was successfully banned after WWI was that everyone involved agreed that it was more trouble than it was worth.
I suppose that, even in warfare, not everything is zero-sum.
Side issue: should the military effectiveness of bombs be measured by the death toll?
I tentatively suggest that atomic and nuclear bombs are of a different kind than chemical explosives, as shown by the former changing the world politically.
I’m not sure exactly why—it may have been the shock of novelty.
Atom and nuclear bombs combine explosion, fire, and poison, but I see no reason to think there would have have been the same sort of wide spread revulsion against chemical explosives, and the world outlawed poison gas in WWI and just kept on going with chemical explosives.
Chemical explosives changed the world politically, just longer ago. Particularly when they put the chemicals in a confined area and put lead pellets on top...
I’ve never really got that. If you are going to kill people kill them well. War isn’t nice and people get injured horribly. That’s kind of the point.
I think that when both sides use poison gas in warfare, the net effect is that everyone’s soldiers end up having to fight while wearing rubber suits, which offer an effective defense against gas but are damn inconvenient to fight in. So it just ends up making things worse for everyone. Furthermore, being the first to use poison gas, before your enemy starts to defend against it and retaliate in kind, doesn’t really provide that big of an advantage. In the end, I guess that the reason gas was successfully banned after WWI was that everyone involved agreed that it was more trouble than it was worth.
I suppose that, even in warfare, not everything is zero-sum.
Seems like a classic iterated prisoner’s dilemma.