Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!xanth!ukma!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!cbnews!c60c-3ar%web-3d.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
From: c60c-3ar%web-3d.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Raymond Tam)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Gas warfare, how bad really?
Message-ID: <3496@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Date: 26 Jan 89 14:51:34 GMT
References: <3453@cbnews.ATT.COM>
Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 28
Approved: military@att.att.com


From: c60c-3ar%web-3d.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Raymond Tam)

>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.

  This is a very good point.  Whereas the gas used in WWI were not designed
solely for killing enemy soldiers (they were irritants, supposedly), nerve
agents are designed to kill, not incapacitate soldiers.  Also, mustard gas
and chlorine gas, often used in WWI, could be detected *before* 
concentrations of the gas proved harmful.  Modern nerve agents, however, 
are oderless and usually very difficult to  detect visually.  I've heard
that there may be battlefield instruments to detect nerve agents, but I'm
not sure (anyone care to comment?).  Even so, it does not seem very probable
or practical that all areas in a combat zone will have one of these, even
if they do exist.

>  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.

  Very true.  A modern war involving nerve agents in Europe or any other 
densly poplulated area would kill a very significant portion of the 
civilian population, especially since some gases won't disippate for days.

				Raymond Tam