For more than 30 years, the United States has worked tirelessly to eliminate our chemical weapons stockpile. Today, I am proud to announce that the United States has safely destroyed the final munition in that stockpile—bringing us one step closer to a world free from the horrors of chemical weapons. Successive administrations have determined that these…

  • OptimusPrimeDownfall@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why do I feel like some has gotten lost over the years and we’re just gonna “find” it if we ever get into another world war? Or we got rid of the weapons, but it was juuuust long enough to make sure we stored the info on how to make them?

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m super happy if we did get rid of them, I’m just skeptical.

    • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Chemical weapons are pretty strategically bad for how the US engages in warfare. Chemical weapons are great for driving up civilian body count. The US doesn’t really do that as a strategic goal. On the battlefield they have a really high chance of killing and/or permanently disabling your own soldiers. It’s really more of a guerilla’s/terrorist’s class of weapon because it’s good for area denial and wreaking havoc on soft targets.

    • Scooter411@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      We absolutely still know how to make them and in fact still have small stockpiles of them.

      What we have kept are far below international agreements and are used to test PPE for soldiers who may find themselves being attacked with these bio/chem threats.

    • PugJesus@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      We had (literal) tons of chemical weapons during WW2 and never resorted to them.

      Truth be told, chemical weapons are generally actually pretty shit. They’re hard to control (which creates potential for both civilian AND friendly casualties), they don’t kill or otherwise put enemies hors de combat particularly reliably, and if both sides end up using them, all that ends up with is a lot of infantry in NBC gear being miserable and not actually increasing the ability of offensives or defensives in any meaningful way.

      Anyway, there’s no need to store the info on how to make them because it’s quite literally public knowledge for the most useful and widely used/stored chemical weapons.

    • piecat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We got rid of the “finished and assembled” chemical weapons. The precursors are all ready to be mixed.

    • MxM111@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      US did not use chemical weapons since WW I. Why would we start using them in future wars?

  • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, I suppose it’s a good thing no one will try to invade us over WMDs now, considering we invaded Iraq for what turned out to be 39 tons of mustard gas

    • atlhart@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      In principle, these type of weapons are immoral even in war. We’re talking about things like mustard gas, chlorine gas, sarin gas. Nerve agents that are incredibly cruel and painful. They painfully, sometimes slowly, kill or incapacitate indiscriminately.

      I think in practice warfare and weaponry have changed enough that the U.S. military feels it can wage war more effectively without these type of weapons.