Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!ncar!unmvax!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!john@jclyde.cactus.org
From: john@jclyde.cactus.org (John B. Meaders Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Gas warfare, how bad really?
Message-ID: <3454@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 89 03:52:20 GMT
References: <3357@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: Capitalist Warmongers, Inc., Austin, TX
Lines: 20
Approved: military@att.att.com


In article <3357@cbnews.ATT.COM> punch@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (William F. Punch) writes:
>
>Bottom line, is the fuss being put up all that realistic given the
>normal weapons these kinds of countries have?

Speaking as a soldier, all I can say is that my main reason I am against 
chemical warfare is that it is a pain.  Combat effectiveness of troops is
drastically reduced when wearing MOPP (Mission Oriented Protective Posture)
gear.  However, I can't really see any fault with your article since it is
mainly academic whether it is worse to be maimed by HE or chemicals.

John B. Meaders, Jr.
2LT, QM
USA
-- 
John B. Meaders, Jr.  BS Petroleum Engineering  UT '88
1114 Camino La Costa #3083, Austin, TX  78752
ATT:  Voice:  +1 (512) 451-5038  Data:  +1 (512) 371-0550
UUCP:   ...!cs.utexas.edu!bigtex!jclyde!john  or  john@jclyde.cactus.org