Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ub!rutgers!att!cbnews!military
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: No options in the oilfields but chemical warfare?
Message-ID: <1990Oct8.030519.12031@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 8 Oct 90 03:05:19 GMT
References: <1990Oct4.012221.11150@cbnews.att.com>
Sender: military-request@att.att.com
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 29
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)
> From: convex!cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash)
> 
> I think the rationale for any use of chemical weapons by the US would be to
> equalize the handicap imposed on us by the enemy's (first) use of such
> weapons. ... (We would not, of course, ever use chemical
> weapons on unprotected civilian population centers.) 

Depends on how you want to classify "chemical weapons".  The US 
regularly makes use of napalm and white phosphorus, which could be
called "incendiaries" or chemical, depending on how you define a
"chemical weapon".  We certainly were guilty of "first use" of 
defoliants (a chemical weapon), and there was much collateral damage
to unprotected civilians, as well as our own troops.

Even should the Iraqis use chemical weapons, I would argue against
their use in reply. (1) Political reasons: we are "bad guys" using
immoral, illegal weapons against Arabs.  Makes it likely that war
would be longer, with more US casualties. (2) Military reasons:
we can achieve military objectives much more effectively with other
weapons.

Keep in mind the reasons that chemicals have not been employed generally
by the major powers since 1918: they are difficult to manage on the
battlefield (particularly where targets are mobile and dispersed), 
and are not very effective against protected troops.  It has almost
nothing to do with morality.