title
stringlengths 26
140
| content
stringlengths 290
280k
| url
stringlengths 47
236
|
|---|---|---|
Do you believe Syria uses chemical weapons? | I have my doubts. I’ve never seen any compelling evidence to suggest he did and it really doesn’t make any sense that he would.
According to the reports, around sixty people died in a chemical attack. If Assad wants to kill people, he can easily take out sixty people using conventional ordnance. In fact, he regularly does. So why would he do the one thing that would compel the international community to get involved and take action against him?
He’s been a key player in one of humanity’s most disgusting dI have my doubts. I’ve never seen any compelling evidence to suggest he did and it really doesn’t make any sense that he would.
According to the reports, around sixty people died in a chemical attack. If Assad wants to kill people, he can easily take out sixty people using conventional ordnance. In fact, he regularly does. So why would he do the one thing that would compel the international community to get involved and take action against him?
He’s been a key player in one of humanity’s most disgusting dI have my doubts. I’ve never seen any compelling evidence to suggest he did and it really doesn’t make any sense that he would.
According to the reports, around sixty people died in a chemical attack. If Assad wants to kill people, he can easily take out sixty people using conventional ordnance. In fact, he regularly does. So why would he do the one thing that would compel the international community to get involved and take action against him?
He’s been a key player in one of humanity’s most disgusting dI have my doubts. I’ve never seen any compelling evidence to suggest he did and it really doesn’t make any sense that he would.
According to the reports, around sixty people died in a chemical attack. If Assad wants to kill people, he can easily take out sixty people using conventional ordnance. In fact, he regularly does. So why would he do the one thing that would compel the international community to get involved and take action against him?
He’s been a key player in one of humanity’s most disgusting dI have my doubts. I’ve never seen any compelling evidence to suggest he did and it really doesn’t make any sense that he would.
According to the reports, around sixty people died in a chemical attack. If Assad wants to kill people, he can easily take out sixty people using conventional ordnance. In fact, he regularly does. So why would he do the one thing that would compel the international community to get involved and take action against him?
He’s been a key player in one of humanity’s most disgusting d | https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-Syria-uses-chemical-weapons |
Why are chemical weapons illegal? | The prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. IThe prohibitions against chemical weapons predate WWI. I can’t say what the driving force was originally other than perhaps a sense of “fairness”. There appears to have been repeated attempts through international conventions to make war sort of chivalrous or humane, though in reality it is never is.
The Hague Convention has other odd prohibitions like the ban on expanding bullets, which seems to be based on a knee-jerk panic against new developments rather than a logical analysis of its use and effects. I | https://www.quora.com/Why-are-chemical-weapons-illegal |
Did Israel use chemical weapons against the Palestinians? | Yes.
It injected the Palestinains living in Israel first. Those who consented were mass injected.
Women, men, old people, the regime spared no one from the chance to be injected if they so chose
Next the regime injected all the Palestinains who worked in Israel. Even though they weren't Israeli citizens they were eligible for injections
Next the regime injected all the Palestinains who worked in Israel. Even though they weren't Israeli citizens they were eligible for injections
Next the regime injected all the Palestinains who worked in Israel. Even though they weren't Israeli citizens they were eligible for injections
These news date back to 2016. It seems that even back then the “moderate opposition” that USA was supporting and training was perfectly willing and capable to perform such an act.
So when these days, you hear just another accusation of AssadA piece of info that got in my hands literally a few hours ago, by accident:
[Syrian rebels admit chemical use against Kurds](http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/7a0f6294-ab7f-4d15-b5af-3ff4b444ab3f/Syrian-rebels-admit-chemical-use-against-Kurds "www.kurdistan24.net")
These news date back to 2016. It seems that even back then the “moderate opposition” that USA was supporting and training was perfectly willing and capable to perform such an act.
So when these days, you hear just another accusation of Assad | https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-Syrian-rebels-framed-Assad-for-chemical-weapon-attacks |
The Russians have just used chemical weapons in Mariupol. Does NATO now step in? | The Russians have just used chemical weapons in Mariupol. Does NATO now step in?
Answered by · Author has 822 answers and 253.6K answer views
· [Apr 12, 2022](https://russiaandukraineconflict.quora.com/The-Russians-have-just-used-chemical-weapons-in-Mariupol-Does-NATO-now-step-in-1)
I have seen nothing about the Russians having used chemical weapons in Mariupol. They are pounding that City and tens of thousands of people have died. I am kind of a News junkie, spend a lot more time than most. Many differeThe Russians have just used chemical weapons in Mariupol. Does NATO now step in?
Answered by · Author has 822 answers and 253.6K answer views
· [Apr 12, 2022](https://russiaandukraineconflict.quora.com/The-Russians-have-just-used-chemical-weapons-in-Mariupol-Does-NATO-now-step-in-1)
I have seen nothing about the Russians having used chemical weapons in Mariupol. They are pounding that City and tens of thousands of people have died. I am kind of a News junkie, spend a lot more time than most. Many differeThe Russians have just used chemical weapons in Mariupol. Does NATO now step in?
Answered by · Author has 822 answers and 253.6K answer views
· [Apr 12, 2022](https://russiaandukraineconflict.quora.com/The-Russians-have-just-used-chemical-weapons-in-Mariupol-Does-NATO-now-step-in-1)
I have seen nothing about the Russians having used chemical weapons in Mariupol. They are pounding that City and tens of thousands of people have died. I am kind of a News junkie, spend a lot more time than most. Many differeThe Russians have just used chemical weapons in Mariupol. Does NATO now step in?
Answered by · Author has 822 answers and 253.6K answer views
· [Apr 12, 2022](https://russiaandukraineconflict.quora.com/The-Russians-have-just-used-chemical-weapons-in-Mariupol-Does-NATO-now-step-in-1)
I have seen nothing about the Russians having used chemical weapons in Mariupol. They are pounding that City and tens of thousands of people have died. I am kind of a News junkie, spend a lot more time than most. Many differeThe Russians have just used chemical weapons in Mariupol. Does NATO now step in?
Answered by · Author has 822 answers and 253.6K answer views
· [Apr 12, 2022](https://russiaandukraineconflict.quora.com/The-Russians-have-just-used-chemical-weapons-in-Mariupol-Does-NATO-now-step-in-1)
I have seen nothing about the Russians having used chemical weapons in Mariupol. They are pounding that City and tens of thousands of people have died. I am kind of a News junkie, spend a lot more time than most. Many differeThe Russians have just used chemical weapons in Mariupol. Does NATO now step in?
Answered by · Author has 822 answers and 253.6K answer views
· [Apr 12, 2022](https://russiaandukraineconflict.quora.com/The-Russians-have-just-used-chemical-weapons-in-Mariupol-Does-NATO-now-step-in-1)
I have seen nothing about the Russians having used chemical weapons in Mariupol. They are pounding that City and tens of thousands of people have died. I am kind of a News junkie, spend a lot more time than most. Many differe | https://www.quora.com/The-Russians-have-just-used-chemical-weapons-in-Mariupol-Does-NATO-now-step-in |
Who gave chemical weapons to Syria and Iraq? | 
As of today there’s no credible evidence that Syria have the capacity to produce the chemical weapons entirely on its own.
The Syrian government is thought to possess stocks of nerve agents (sarin and VX) as well as mustard gas, which was surrendered by Syrian government in 2014 according to OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, statment in The Hague.
Presumably Syria first began stockpiling chemical weapons in early 1970s, when Egyp
As of today there’s no credible evidence that Syria have the capacity to produce the chemical weapons entirely on its own.
The Syrian government is thought to possess stocks of nerve agents (sarin and VX) as well as mustard gas, which was surrendered by Syrian government in 2014 according to OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, statment in The Hague.
Presumably Syria first began stockpiling chemical weapons in early 1970s, when Egyp
As of today there’s no credible evidence that Syria have the capacity to produce the chemical weapons entirely on its own.
The Syrian government is thought to possess stocks of nerve agents (sarin and VX) as well as mustard gas, which was surrendered by Syrian government in 2014 according to OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, statment in The Hague.
Presumably Syria first began stockpiling chemical weapons in early 1970s, when Egyp
As of today there’s no credible evidence that Syria have the capacity to produce the chemical weapons entirely on its own.
The Syrian government is thought to possess stocks of nerve agents (sarin and VX) as well as mustard gas, which was surrendered by Syrian government in 2014 according to OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, statment in The Hague.
Presumably Syria first began stockpiling chemical weapons in early 1970s, when Egyp
As of today there’s no credible evidence that Syria have the capacity to produce the chemical weapons entirely on its own.
The Syrian government is thought to possess stocks of nerve agents (sarin and VX) as well as mustard gas, which was surrendered by Syrian government in 2014 according to OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, statment in The Hague.
Presumably Syria first began stockpiling chemical weapons in early 1970s, when Egyp
As of today there’s no credible evidence that Syria have the capacity to produce the chemical weapons entirely on its own.
The Syrian government is thought to possess stocks of nerve agents (sarin and VX) as well as mustard gas, which was surrendered by Syrian government in 2014 according to OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, statment in The Hague.
Presumably Syria first began stockpiling chemical weapons in early 1970s, when Egyp
As of today there’s no credible evidence that Syria have the capacity to produce the chemical weapons entirely on its own.
The Syrian government is thought to possess stocks of nerve agents (sarin and VX) as well as mustard gas, which was surrendered by Syrian government in 2014 according to OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, statment in The Hague.
Presumably Syria first began stockpiling chemical weapons in early 1970s, when Egyp
As of today there’s no credible evidence that Syria have the capacity to produce the chemical weapons entirely on its own.
The Syrian government is thought to possess stocks of nerve agents (sarin and VX) as well as mustard gas, which was surrendered by Syrian government in 2014 according to OPCW, Ahmet Uzumcu, statment in The Hague.
Presumably Syria first began stockpiling chemical weapons in early 1970s, when Egyp | https://www.quora.com/Who-gave-chemical-weapons-to-Syria-and-Iraq |
Are the Russians planning to use chemical weapons on Ukraine? | The one thing the world needs right now is empathy.
Imagine you have been told that Russian soldiers are in the next city, burning schools, raping women and burying babies with their mothers in the hospitals they’re bombing. What would you feel like doing?
You’d be somewhat compelled to stop those fascist invaders - the New Nazis that seem hell-bent on torching everything sacred and true, and establishing a new Evil Empire on the ruins of the old Soviet Union, right?
I mean, the scenes are a bit reminiscThe one thing the world needs right now is empathy.
Imagine you have been told that Russian soldiers are in the next city, burning schools, raping women and burying babies with their mothers in the hospitals they’re bombing. What would you feel like doing?
You’d be somewhat compelled to stop those fascist invaders - the New Nazis that seem hell-bent on torching everything sacred and true, and establishing a new Evil Empire on the ruins of the old Soviet Union, right?
I mean, the scenes are a bit reminiscThe one thing the world needs right now is empathy.
Imagine you have been told that Russian soldiers are in the next city, burning schools, raping women and burying babies with their mothers in the hospitals they’re bombing. What would you feel like doing?
You’d be somewhat compelled to stop those fascist invaders - the New Nazis that seem hell-bent on torching everything sacred and true, and establishing a new Evil Empire on the ruins of the old Soviet Union, right?
I mean, the scenes are a bit reminiscThe one thing the world needs right now is empathy.
Imagine you have been told that Russian soldiers are in the next city, burning schools, raping women and burying babies with their mothers in the hospitals they’re bombing. What would you feel like doing?
You’d be somewhat compelled to stop those fascist invaders - the New Nazis that seem hell-bent on torching everything sacred and true, and establishing a new Evil Empire on the ruins of the old Soviet Union, right?
I mean, the scenes are a bit reminisc | https://www.quora.com/Are-the-Russians-planning-to-use-chemical-weapons-on-Ukraine |
Why would/did Assad use chemical weapons instead of regular weapons, considering that both can cause the same number of causalities, but ... | This question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
FiThis question is very popular these days. At the first view without additional information and understanding, it is easy to say “Assad has no interest in using chemical weapons because he is winning.”. But, things are not as easy they sound. Let’s analyze few fundamental questions:
1. Is Assad winning?
2. How Assad sees Syrian conflict?
3. Why there are so many rebel groups?
4. How can rebels hold a position in different regions?
5. Why would Assad use chemical weapons in Douma?
Is Assad winning?
Fi | https://www.quora.com/Why-would-did-Assad-use-chemical-weapons-instead-of-regular-weapons-considering-that-both-can-cause-the-same-number-of-causalities-but-using-chemical-weapons-results-in-much-worse-international-repercussions |
Do we have any proof that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons, including against its own citizens? | The strongest evidence?
That was something like this: “Mattis went on to acknowledge that “aid groups and others” had provided evidence and reports but stopped short of naming President Assad as the culprit” (Newsweek)
Aid groups like the White Helmets, who are not free from suspicion themselves.
Furthermore Mattis: “There were casualties from organophosphate poisoning in both cases; that much is certain. But America has accused Assad of direct responsibility for Sarin attacks and even blamed Russia for The strongest evidence?
That was something like this: “Mattis went on to acknowledge that “aid groups and others” had provided evidence and reports but stopped short of naming President Assad as the culprit” (Newsweek)
Aid groups like the White Helmets, who are not free from suspicion themselves.
Furthermore Mattis: “There were casualties from organophosphate poisoning in both cases; that much is certain. But America has accused Assad of direct responsibility for Sarin attacks and even blamed Russia for The strongest evidence?
That was something like this: “Mattis went on to acknowledge that “aid groups and others” had provided evidence and reports but stopped short of naming President Assad as the culprit” (Newsweek)
Aid groups like the White Helmets, who are not free from suspicion themselves.
Furthermore Mattis: “There were casualties from organophosphate poisoning in both cases; that much is certain. But America has accused Assad of direct responsibility for Sarin attacks and even blamed Russia for | https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-any-proof-that-the-Syrian-regime-has-used-chemical-weapons-including-against-its-own-citizens |
Why didn't Hitler use chemical weapons in Stalingrad? | Two very good answers earlier, but my 2 cents worth:
After the war, Herman Goering was interrogated by American OSS officers\*, and one of the questions asked was this. Why didn’t Germany, with their advanced chemical industry, use chemical weapons against the allies? The answer was surprisingly simple: horses.
85% of German transport during WW2 - artillery, field kitchens & supply wagons - were horse drawn. Although gas masks had been developed for horses, horses are hard to control and refuse to move whTwo very good answers earlier, but my 2 cents worth:
After the war, Herman Goering was interrogated by American OSS officers\*, and one of the questions asked was this. Why didn’t Germany, with their advanced chemical industry, use chemical weapons against the allies? The answer was surprisingly simple: horses.
85% of German transport during WW2 - artillery, field kitchens & supply wagons - were horse drawn. Although gas masks had been developed for horses, horses are hard to control and refuse to move wh | https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Hitler-use-chemical-weapons-in-Stalingrad |
Why wasn't chemical warfare used in World War II? | It was used in a couple of situations where the aggressor had no fear of reprisal in kind.
These were in China by the Japanese, largely against civilians. And by the Germans with its secret annihilation of captive civilians (Germany also used toxic munitions to a limited extent in Crimea to kill partisans hiding in tunnels).
Outside of these situations the use of gas was considered on both sides from time to time, but the balance of considerations always fell on the side of considering it a disadvantage tIt was used in a couple of situations where the aggressor had no fear of reprisal in kind.
These were in China by the Japanese, largely against civilians. And by the Germans with its secret annihilation of captive civilians (Germany also used toxic munitions to a limited extent in Crimea to kill partisans hiding in tunnels).
Outside of these situations the use of gas was considered on both sides from time to time, but the balance of considerations always fell on the side of considering it a disadvantage tIt was used in a couple of situations where the aggressor had no fear of reprisal in kind.
These were in China by the Japanese, largely against civilians. And by the Germans with its secret annihilation of captive civilians (Germany also used toxic munitions to a limited extent in Crimea to kill partisans hiding in tunnels).
Outside of these situations the use of gas was considered on both sides from time to time, but the balance of considerations always fell on the side of considering it a disadvantage tIt was used in a couple of situations where the aggressor had no fear of reprisal in kind.
These were in China by the Japanese, largely against civilians. And by the Germans with its secret annihilation of captive civilians (Germany also used toxic munitions to a limited extent in Crimea to kill partisans hiding in tunnels).
Outside of these situations the use of gas was considered on both sides from time to time, but the balance of considerations always fell on the side of considering it a disadvantage tIt was used in a couple of situations where the aggressor had no fear of reprisal in kind.
These were in China by the Japanese, largely against civilians. And by the Germans with its secret annihilation of captive civilians (Germany also used toxic munitions to a limited extent in Crimea to kill partisans hiding in tunnels).
Outside of these situations the use of gas was considered on both sides from time to time, but the balance of considerations always fell on the side of considering it a disadvantage tIt was used in a couple of situations where the aggressor had no fear of reprisal in kind.
These were in China by the Japanese, largely against civilians. And by the Germans with its secret annihilation of captive civilians (Germany also used toxic munitions to a limited extent in Crimea to kill partisans hiding in tunnels).
Outside of these situations the use of gas was considered on both sides from time to time, but the balance of considerations always fell on the side of considering it a disadvantage tIt was used in a couple of situations where the aggressor had no fear of reprisal in kind.
These were in China by the Japanese, largely against civilians. And by the Germans with its secret annihilation of captive civilians (Germany also used toxic munitions to a limited extent in Crimea to kill partisans hiding in tunnels).
Outside of these situations the use of gas was considered on both sides from time to time, but the balance of considerations always fell on the side of considering it a disadvantage tIt was used in a couple of situations where the aggressor had no fear of reprisal in kind.
These were in China by the Japanese, largely against civilians. And by the Germans with its secret annihilation of captive civilians (Germany also used toxic munitions to a limited extent in Crimea to kill partisans hiding in tunnels).
Outside of these situations the use of gas was considered on both sides from time to time, but the balance of considerations always fell on the side of considering it a disadvantage t | https://www.quora.com/Why-wasnt-chemical-warfare-used-in-World-War-II |
Is the portrayal of the chemical weapon, VX Gas, featured in the movie The Rock accurate? | It’s a movie. Pretty much nothing in the movie is accurate.
Let’s start with this scene. VX is a nerve agent, not a blister agent. It interferes with the nervous system but it doesn’t start fucking up your skin or melting your face off.
Then there’s the weird green anal beads of death. This is not what VX looks like. It’s more likelIt’s a movie. Pretty much nothing in the movie is accurate.
Let’s start with this scene. VX is a nerve agent, not a blister agent. It interferes with the nervous system but it doesn’t start fucking up your skin or melting your face off.
Then there’s the weird green anal beads of death. This is not what VX looks like. It’s more likelIt’s a movie. Pretty much nothing in the movie is accurate.
Let’s start with this scene. VX is a nerve agent, not a blister agent. It interferes with the nervous system but it doesn’t start fucking up your skin or melting your face off.
Then there’s the weird green anal beads of death. This is not what VX looks like. It’s more likelIt’s a movie. Pretty much nothing in the movie is accurate.
Let’s start with this scene. VX is a nerve agent, not a blister agent. It interferes with the nervous system but it doesn’t start fucking up your skin or melting your face off.
Then there’s the weird green anal beads of death. This is not what VX looks like. It’s more likelIt’s a movie. Pretty much nothing in the movie is accurate.
Let’s start with this scene. VX is a nerve agent, not a blister agent. It interferes with the nervous system but it doesn’t start fucking up your skin or melting your face off.
Then there’s the weird green anal beads of death. This is not what VX looks like. It’s more likelIt’s a movie. Pretty much nothing in the movie is accurate.
Let’s start with this scene. VX is a nerve agent, not a blister agent. It interferes with the nervous system but it doesn’t start fucking up your skin or melting your face off.
Then there’s the weird green anal beads of death. This is not what VX looks like. It’s more likelIt’s a movie. Pretty much nothing in the movie is accurate.
Let’s start with this scene. VX is a nerve agent, not a blister agent. It interferes with the nervous system but it doesn’t start fucking up your skin or melting your face off.
Then there’s the weird green anal beads of death. This is not what VX looks like. It’s more likelIt’s a movie. Pretty much nothing in the movie is accurate.
Let’s start with this scene. VX is a nerve agent, not a blister agent. It interferes with the nervous system but it doesn’t start fucking up your skin or melting your face off.
Then there’s the weird green anal beads of death. This is not what VX looks like. It’s more likelIt’s a movie. Pretty much nothing in the movie is accurate.
Let’s start with this scene. VX is a nerve agent, not a blister agent. It interferes with the nervous system but it doesn’t start fucking up your skin or melting your face off.
Then there’s the weird green anal beads of death. This is not what VX looks like. It’s more likelIt’s a movie. Pretty much nothing in the movie is accurate.
Let’s start with this scene. VX is a nerve agent, not a blister agent. It interferes with the nervous system but it doesn’t start fucking up your skin or melting your face off.
Then there’s the weird green anal beads of death. This is not what VX looks like. It’s more likelIt’s a movie. Pretty much nothing in the movie is accurate.
Let’s start with this scene. VX is a nerve agent, not a blister agent. It interferes with the nervous system but it doesn’t start fucking up your skin or melting your face off.
Then there’s the weird green anal beads of death. This is not what VX looks like. It’s more likel | https://www.quora.com/Is-the-portrayal-of-the-chemical-weapon-VX-Gas-featured-in-the-movie-The-Rock-accurate |
Having used chemical weapons in Fallujah, how can the US attack another country (Syria) for doing the same to its own people? How is it o... | CS and, I believe, CN, plus incendiaries like napalm and white phosphorus. Yes, they’re chemical weapons, too. However, note:
“It is the position of the United States that the Geneva \[Gas\] Protocol of 1925 does not prohibit the use in war of … riot control agents, which are those agents of a type widely used by governments for law enforcement purposes because they produce, in all but the most unusual circumstances, merely transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure to the agent has terCS and, I believe, CN, plus incendiaries like napalm and white phosphorus. Yes, they’re chemical weapons, too. However, note:
“It is the position of the United States that the Geneva \[Gas\] Protocol of 1925 does not prohibit the use in war of … riot control agents, which are those agents of a type widely used by governments for law enforcement purposes because they produce, in all but the most unusual circumstances, merely transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure to the agent has terCS and, I believe, CN, plus incendiaries like napalm and white phosphorus. Yes, they’re chemical weapons, too. However, note:
“It is the position of the United States that the Geneva \[Gas\] Protocol of 1925 does not prohibit the use in war of … riot control agents, which are those agents of a type widely used by governments for law enforcement purposes because they produce, in all but the most unusual circumstances, merely transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure to the agent has terCS and, I believe, CN, plus incendiaries like napalm and white phosphorus. Yes, they’re chemical weapons, too. However, note:
“It is the position of the United States that the Geneva \[Gas\] Protocol of 1925 does not prohibit the use in war of … riot control agents, which are those agents of a type widely used by governments for law enforcement purposes because they produce, in all but the most unusual circumstances, merely transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure to the agent has terCS and, I believe, CN, plus incendiaries like napalm and white phosphorus. Yes, they’re chemical weapons, too. However, note:
“It is the position of the United States that the Geneva \[Gas\] Protocol of 1925 does not prohibit the use in war of … riot control agents, which are those agents of a type widely used by governments for law enforcement purposes because they produce, in all but the most unusual circumstances, merely transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure to the agent has terCS and, I believe, CN, plus incendiaries like napalm and white phosphorus. Yes, they’re chemical weapons, too. However, note:
“It is the position of the United States that the Geneva \[Gas\] Protocol of 1925 does not prohibit the use in war of … riot control agents, which are those agents of a type widely used by governments for law enforcement purposes because they produce, in all but the most unusual circumstances, merely transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure to the agent has terCS and, I believe, CN, plus incendiaries like napalm and white phosphorus. Yes, they’re chemical weapons, too. However, note:
“It is the position of the United States that the Geneva \[Gas\] Protocol of 1925 does not prohibit the use in war of … riot control agents, which are those agents of a type widely used by governments for law enforcement purposes because they produce, in all but the most unusual circumstances, merely transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure to the agent has ter | https://www.quora.com/Having-used-chemical-weapons-in-Fallujah-how-can-the-US-attack-another-country-Syria-for-doing-the-same-to-its-own-people-How-is-it-okay-for-the-US-to-use-chemical-weapons-in-Vietnam-Iraq-and-Afghanistan |
Was Agent Orange a chemical weapon? | Agent Orange was one of the “Rainbow Herbicides” used in southeast Asia during the 1960’s to limit foliage growth in areas where insurgents were known or thought to operate. It was also used individually by many U.S. units to kill plant life in and around landing zones and camps, in order to enhance visibility and establish defensive fields of fire.
Other agents in the “Rainbow” included green, pink, purple (all used prior to 1965), as well as white and blue. Agent Blue has received notice in Australia — sAgent Orange was one of the “Rainbow Herbicides” used in southeast Asia during the 1960’s to limit foliage growth in areas where insurgents were known or thought to operate. It was also used individually by many U.S. units to kill plant life in and around landing zones and camps, in order to enhance visibility and establish defensive fields of fire.
Other agents in the “Rainbow” included green, pink, purple (all used prior to 1965), as well as white and blue. Agent Blue has received notice in Australia — sAgent Orange was one of the “Rainbow Herbicides” used in southeast Asia during the 1960’s to limit foliage growth in areas where insurgents were known or thought to operate. It was also used individually by many U.S. units to kill plant life in and around landing zones and camps, in order to enhance visibility and establish defensive fields of fire.
Other agents in the “Rainbow” included green, pink, purple (all used prior to 1965), as well as white and blue. Agent Blue has received notice in Australia — s | https://www.quora.com/Was-Agent-Orange-a-chemical-weapon |
What are the reasons why Syria used chemical weapons? | What are the reasons why Syria used chemical weapons?
Your second question in an answer to the first. Syrian goverment is winning with conventional weapons so it does not need to use chemical weapon. So it does not using it.
They wouldn't and didn't. The weapons used were used by outside forces, not Assad or his regime. All evidence points to either the FSA using them (in order to incite the US and allies into attacking the Assad) or the deep state (some could argue the FSA is part of the deep state, anywWhat are the reasons why Syria used chemical weapons?
Your second question in an answer to the first. Syrian goverment is winning with conventional weapons so it does not need to use chemical weapon. So it does not using it.
They wouldn't and didn't. The weapons used were used by outside forces, not Assad or his regime. All evidence points to either the FSA using them (in order to incite the US and allies into attacking the Assad) or the deep state (some could argue the FSA is part of the deep state, anywWhat are the reasons why Syria used chemical weapons?
Your second question in an answer to the first. Syrian goverment is winning with conventional weapons so it does not need to use chemical weapon. So it does not using it.
They wouldn't and didn't. The weapons used were used by outside forces, not Assad or his regime. All evidence points to either the FSA using them (in order to incite the US and allies into attacking the Assad) or the deep state (some could argue the FSA is part of the deep state, anywWhat are the reasons why Syria used chemical weapons?
Your second question in an answer to the first. Syrian goverment is winning with conventional weapons so it does not need to use chemical weapon. So it does not using it.
They wouldn't and didn't. The weapons used were used by outside forces, not Assad or his regime. All evidence points to either the FSA using them (in order to incite the US and allies into attacking the Assad) or the deep state (some could argue the FSA is part of the deep state, anyw | https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-reasons-why-Syria-used-chemical-weapons |
Did Russia use chemical weapons? | I regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question anI regularly send NBC (nuclear, biological, and chemical) gas masks and filters to the frontline units in Ukraine.
We had already several incidents where Russian troops were using so-called Chloropicrin, which is a chemical agent that attacks the lungs.
The number of cases is on the rise and if they haven’t done it before, Ukrainian army units are taking precautions.
A soldier of the Armed Forces of Ukraine with NBC protection equipment and radios that I sent to his unit.
So it really isn’t a question an | https://www.quora.com/Did-Russia-use-chemical-weapons |
Is there a difference between biological and chemical weapons? | We’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block theWe’ve had a few answers, I really don’t feel as if we’ve really properly defined and explained things as well as we could do. So, here goes.
Chemical weapons are not weapons that use chemicals, they’re legally defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention. Of the types, there are nerve agents, choking agents, blood agents, vomiting agents, blistering agents, incapacitating agents and riot control agents.
What has captured a great deal of interest of late are nerve agents. Nerve agents typically block the | https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-difference-between-biological-and-chemical-weapons |
Why would Assad use chemical weapons when he is already winning the war? An attack like this would only favor those against his regime. | “If Assad is willing and able to use chemical weapons, why doesn't he ever use them strategically?”
Thanks for asking.
Chemical weapons are called the poor man's nuclear weapons for a good reason. They are cheap and devastate large areas. Their strategic use is to destroy large areas of enemy territory that otherwise would offer large resistance. The last time we had a fully documented use of chemical weapons by a government with expected outcome was Halabja Iraq
 gets destroyed, end of story
But with many chemical agents it is NOT over VX for example is designed to evaporate only VERY slowly, which means even tiny droplets stuck somewhere will stay there until the object gets cleaned off by a decontamination team. Let's say a chemical bomb dropped in the middle of a city. Tiny droplets spray literaAre chemical weapons worse than conventional attacks?
Depends primarily on the agent being used. A conventional attack blows stuff up, the stuff (and any people nearby) gets destroyed, end of story
But with many chemical agents it is NOT over VX for example is designed to evaporate only VERY slowly, which means even tiny droplets stuck somewhere will stay there until the object gets cleaned off by a decontamination team. Let's say a chemical bomb dropped in the middle of a city. Tiny droplets spray literaAre chemical weapons worse than conventional attacks?
Depends primarily on the agent being used. A conventional attack blows stuff up, the stuff (and any people nearby) gets destroyed, end of story
But with many chemical agents it is NOT over VX for example is designed to evaporate only VERY slowly, which means even tiny droplets stuck somewhere will stay there until the object gets cleaned off by a decontamination team. Let's say a chemical bomb dropped in the middle of a city. Tiny droplets spray literaAre chemical weapons worse than conventional attacks?
Depends primarily on the agent being used. A conventional attack blows stuff up, the stuff (and any people nearby) gets destroyed, end of story
But with many chemical agents it is NOT over VX for example is designed to evaporate only VERY slowly, which means even tiny droplets stuck somewhere will stay there until the object gets cleaned off by a decontamination team. Let's say a chemical bomb dropped in the middle of a city. Tiny droplets spray literaAre chemical weapons worse than conventional attacks?
Depends primarily on the agent being used. A conventional attack blows stuff up, the stuff (and any people nearby) gets destroyed, end of story
But with many chemical agents it is NOT over VX for example is designed to evaporate only VERY slowly, which means even tiny droplets stuck somewhere will stay there until the object gets cleaned off by a decontamination team. Let's say a chemical bomb dropped in the middle of a city. Tiny droplets spray literaAre chemical weapons worse than conventional attacks?
Depends primarily on the agent being used. A conventional attack blows stuff up, the stuff (and any people nearby) gets destroyed, end of story
But with many chemical agents it is NOT over VX for example is designed to evaporate only VERY slowly, which means even tiny droplets stuck somewhere will stay there until the object gets cleaned off by a decontamination team. Let's say a chemical bomb dropped in the middle of a city. Tiny droplets spray literaAre chemical weapons worse than conventional attacks?
Depends primarily on the agent being used. A conventional attack blows stuff up, the stuff (and any people nearby) gets destroyed, end of story
But with many chemical agents it is NOT over VX for example is designed to evaporate only VERY slowly, which means even tiny droplets stuck somewhere will stay there until the object gets cleaned off by a decontamination team. Let's say a chemical bomb dropped in the middle of a city. Tiny droplets spray litera | https://www.quora.com/Are-chemical-weapons-worse-than-conventional-attacks |
Is Israel now using internationally banned chemical weapons in Gaza? | Q: Is it true that Israel have used prohibited war weapons such as DIME bomb and phosphorous shell on Palestinian civilians living in Gaza? Why?
A: WP (White Phosphorus) smokescreen and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) aren't prohibited. Israel did use both.
Moreover, dear OP, a friendly tip - believe what you will, but do a proper research first. The linked article, other than being old, doesn’t have any piece of useful information from unbiased sources. Facts should lead to opinions, not your opinionsQ: Is it true that Israel have used prohibited war weapons such as DIME bomb and phosphorous shell on Palestinian civilians living in Gaza? Why?
A: WP (White Phosphorus) smokescreen and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) aren't prohibited. Israel did use both.
Moreover, dear OP, a friendly tip - believe what you will, but do a proper research first. The linked article, other than being old, doesn’t have any piece of useful information from unbiased sources. Facts should lead to opinions, not your opinionsQ: Is it true that Israel have used prohibited war weapons such as DIME bomb and phosphorous shell on Palestinian civilians living in Gaza? Why?
A: WP (White Phosphorus) smokescreen and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) aren't prohibited. Israel did use both.
Moreover, dear OP, a friendly tip - believe what you will, but do a proper research first. The linked article, other than being old, doesn’t have any piece of useful information from unbiased sources. Facts should lead to opinions, not your opinionsQ: Is it true that Israel have used prohibited war weapons such as DIME bomb and phosphorous shell on Palestinian civilians living in Gaza? Why?
A: WP (White Phosphorus) smokescreen and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) aren't prohibited. Israel did use both.
Moreover, dear OP, a friendly tip - believe what you will, but do a proper research first. The linked article, other than being old, doesn’t have any piece of useful information from unbiased sources. Facts should lead to opinions, not your opinionsQ: Is it true that Israel have used prohibited war weapons such as DIME bomb and phosphorous shell on Palestinian civilians living in Gaza? Why?
A: WP (White Phosphorus) smokescreen and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) aren't prohibited. Israel did use both.
Moreover, dear OP, a friendly tip - believe what you will, but do a proper research first. The linked article, other than being old, doesn’t have any piece of useful information from unbiased sources. Facts should lead to opinions, not your opinionsQ: Is it true that Israel have used prohibited war weapons such as DIME bomb and phosphorous shell on Palestinian civilians living in Gaza? Why?
A: WP (White Phosphorus) smokescreen and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) aren't prohibited. Israel did use both.
Moreover, dear OP, a friendly tip - believe what you will, but do a proper research first. The linked article, other than being old, doesn’t have any piece of useful information from unbiased sources. Facts should lead to opinions, not your opinionsQ: Is it true that Israel have used prohibited war weapons such as DIME bomb and phosphorous shell on Palestinian civilians living in Gaza? Why?
A: WP (White Phosphorus) smokescreen and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) aren't prohibited. Israel did use both.
Moreover, dear OP, a friendly tip - believe what you will, but do a proper research first. The linked article, other than being old, doesn’t have any piece of useful information from unbiased sources. Facts should lead to opinions, not your opinionsQ: Is it true that Israel have used prohibited war weapons such as DIME bomb and phosphorous shell on Palestinian civilians living in Gaza? Why?
A: WP (White Phosphorus) smokescreen and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) aren't prohibited. Israel did use both.
Moreover, dear OP, a friendly tip - believe what you will, but do a proper research first. The linked article, other than being old, doesn’t have any piece of useful information from unbiased sources. Facts should lead to opinions, not your opinionsQ: Is it true that Israel have used prohibited war weapons such as DIME bomb and phosphorous shell on Palestinian civilians living in Gaza? Why?
A: WP (White Phosphorus) smokescreen and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) aren't prohibited. Israel did use both.
Moreover, dear OP, a friendly tip - believe what you will, but do a proper research first. The linked article, other than being old, doesn’t have any piece of useful information from unbiased sources. Facts should lead to opinions, not your opinionsQ: Is it true that Israel have used prohibited war weapons such as DIME bomb and phosphorous shell on Palestinian civilians living in Gaza? Why?
A: WP (White Phosphorus) smokescreen and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) aren't prohibited. Israel did use both.
Moreover, dear OP, a friendly tip - believe what you will, but do a proper research first. The linked article, other than being old, doesn’t have any piece of useful information from unbiased sources. Facts should lead to opinions, not your opinions | https://www.quora.com/Is-Israel-now-using-internationally-banned-chemical-weapons-in-Gaza |
Where did the Syrian government get chemical weapons / sarin gas? The Russians? | It is almost certain the agents were actually made in Syria.
They have been developing them for 40 years (probably since the 73 war) so do not need help any more.
[Syria's chemical weapons program decades old](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-chemicals-nerve-mustard/2730257/ "www.usatoday.com")
It is not actually that difficult chemistry (remember mustard gas was invented in 1900s, and widely used in WW1; Sarin in 1940s and was used by Aum Shurken terrorists cooked up at home).
It is almost certain the agents were actually made in Syria.
They have been developing them for 40 years (probably since the 73 war) so do not need help any more.
[Syria's chemical weapons program decades old](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-chemicals-nerve-mustard/2730257/ "www.usatoday.com")
It is not actually that difficult chemistry (remember mustard gas was invented in 1900s, and widely used in WW1; Sarin in 1940s and was used by Aum Shurken terrorists cooked up at home).
It is almost certain the agents were actually made in Syria.
They have been developing them for 40 years (probably since the 73 war) so do not need help any more.
[Syria's chemical weapons program decades old](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-chemicals-nerve-mustard/2730257/ "www.usatoday.com")
It is not actually that difficult chemistry (remember mustard gas was invented in 1900s, and widely used in WW1; Sarin in 1940s and was used by Aum Shurken terrorists cooked up at home).
It is almost certain the agents were actually made in Syria.
They have been developing them for 40 years (probably since the 73 war) so do not need help any more.
[Syria's chemical weapons program decades old](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-chemicals-nerve-mustard/2730257/ "www.usatoday.com")
It is not actually that difficult chemistry (remember mustard gas was invented in 1900s, and widely used in WW1; Sarin in 1940s and was used by Aum Shurken terrorists cooked up at home).
It is almost certain the agents were actually made in Syria.
They have been developing them for 40 years (probably since the 73 war) so do not need help any more.
[Syria's chemical weapons program decades old](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-chemicals-nerve-mustard/2730257/ "www.usatoday.com")
It is not actually that difficult chemistry (remember mustard gas was invented in 1900s, and widely used in WW1; Sarin in 1940s and was used by Aum Shurken terrorists cooked up at home).
It is almost certain the agents were actually made in Syria.
They have been developing them for 40 years (probably since the 73 war) so do not need help any more.
[Syria's chemical weapons program decades old](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-chemicals-nerve-mustard/2730257/ "www.usatoday.com")
It is not actually that difficult chemistry (remember mustard gas was invented in 1900s, and widely used in WW1; Sarin in 1940s and was used by Aum Shurken terrorists cooked up at home).
It is almost certain the agents were actually made in Syria.
They have been developing them for 40 years (probably since the 73 war) so do not need help any more.
[Syria's chemical weapons program decades old](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-chemicals-nerve-mustard/2730257/ "www.usatoday.com")
It is not actually that difficult chemistry (remember mustard gas was invented in 1900s, and widely used in WW1; Sarin in 1940s and was used by Aum Shurken terrorists cooked up at home).
It is almost certain the agents were actually made in Syria.
They have been developing them for 40 years (probably since the 73 war) so do not need help any more.
[Syria's chemical weapons program decades old](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/29/syria-chemicals-nerve-mustard/2730257/ "www.usatoday.com")
It is not actually that difficult chemistry (remember mustard gas was invented in 1900s, and widely used in WW1; Sarin in 1940s and was used by Aum Shurken terrorists cooked up at home).
| https://www.quora.com/Where-did-the-Syrian-government-get-chemical-weapons-sarin-gas-The-Russians |
Is white phosphorus considered a chemical weapon? What incendiary weapons would be chemical weapons? | Where do people come up with this stuff? No it’s not a chemical weapon, it’s an incendiary weapon.
Does it asphyxiate you (well the smoke caused by a fire can but the chemicals inside the weapon itself aren’t intended to directly asphyxiate you)? Does it poison you? No, it sets you on fire. Hence it is an incendiary and not a chemical weapon.
EDIT: Ok when I say it doesn’t asphyxiate you, I was referring to the material in the Molotov. Yes, I am aware that smoke will asphyxiate you. But this is an importaWhere do people come up with this stuff? No it’s not a chemical weapon, it’s an incendiary weapon.
Does it asphyxiate you (well the smoke caused by a fire can but the chemicals inside the weapon itself aren’t intended to directly asphyxiate you)? Does it poison you? No, it sets you on fire. Hence it is an incendiary and not a chemical weapon.
EDIT: Ok when I say it doesn’t asphyxiate you, I was referring to the material in the Molotov. Yes, I am aware that smoke will asphyxiate you. But this is an importaWhere do people come up with this stuff? No it’s not a chemical weapon, it’s an incendiary weapon.
Does it asphyxiate you (well the smoke caused by a fire can but the chemicals inside the weapon itself aren’t intended to directly asphyxiate you)? Does it poison you? No, it sets you on fire. Hence it is an incendiary and not a chemical weapon.
EDIT: Ok when I say it doesn’t asphyxiate you, I was referring to the material in the Molotov. Yes, I am aware that smoke will asphyxiate you. But this is an importaWhere do people come up with this stuff? No it’s not a chemical weapon, it’s an incendiary weapon.
Does it asphyxiate you (well the smoke caused by a fire can but the chemicals inside the weapon itself aren’t intended to directly asphyxiate you)? Does it poison you? No, it sets you on fire. Hence it is an incendiary and not a chemical weapon.
EDIT: Ok when I say it doesn’t asphyxiate you, I was referring to the material in the Molotov. Yes, I am aware that smoke will asphyxiate you. But this is an importa | https://www.quora.com/Is-white-phosphorus-considered-a-chemical-weapon-What-incendiary-weapons-would-be-chemical-weapons |
Does the US military still use chemical weapons? | I’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing sI’m pained to write an answer here because the top answer - despite written by a fantastic writer whom I respect and follow - is woefully incorrect.
After WWII, United States was at the forefront of chemical weapons research and production.
It wasn’t until 1969 that President Nixon unequivocally stated that the United States wouldn’t ever use chemical weapons first. Up until then we viewed them as fair game. Nixon added on that we would cease future production and would also destroy some of the existing s | https://www.quora.com/Does-the-US-military-still-use-chemical-weapons |
Which is the most cruel biological/chemical weapon ever made? | Q: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (varioQ: What is the deadliest biological weapon on earth?
\*\* Not-pretty pictures included; viewer discretion is advised \*\*
A: I was a dark kid, and have always carried a morbid fascination with all things CBRNE…. which, of course, later translated to a piece of my profession.
To answer your question, that depends on how you define “deadliest”.
There are three (known) really scary weaponizable agents:
* Smallpox (vario | https://www.quora.com/Which-is-the-most-cruel-biological-chemical-weapon-ever-made |
End of preview. Expand
in Dataset Viewer.
README.md exists but content is empty.
Use the Edit dataset card button to edit it.
- Downloads last month
- 0