Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!hc!pprg.unm.edu!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!military
From: military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Gas warfare, how bad really?
Message-ID: <3453@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 89 03:52:18 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 24
Approved: military@att.att.com

>Rhodes claimed that in WW1, only 5% of the 21 million casualties were
>from gas attacks, 30,00 deaths from gas vs. 9 million overall...

It is a verifiable fact that there were very few deaths or permanent
injuries from gas in WWI; most gas casualties recovered completely.
(In particular, despite the well-known depictions of gas-blinded
soldiers, very few gas blindings were permanent -- many fewer than
blindings by shell splinters.)  Prepared soldiers were seldom hurt
much by gas attack, in fact; it was primarily a harassing tactic.

(In WWII, serious consideration was given to saturating Japanese-held
islands with mustard gas for a few days before landings, to reduce the
notoriously high effectiveness of the defences by forcing soldiers to
spend several days in gas suits.)

One may question, however, to what extent this experience is applicable
to modern persistent nerve agents.  The modern chemicals kill in much
smaller doses, can be absorbed through the skin, and dissipate much less
quickly.  It is very difficult to protect soldiers against them, and
significant protection for civilians is virtually impossible.  Civilian
deaths in a modern gas war would be massive.

                                     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
                                 uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu