Slashdot Mirror
100 Years of Chemical Weapons
MTorrice writes This year marks the 100th anniversary of the first large-scale use of chemical weapons during World War I. Sarah Everts at Chemical & Engineering News remembers the event with a detailed account of the day in 1915 when the German Army released chlorine gas on its enemies, igniting a chemical arms race. Read the diaries of soldiers involved in the first gas attack. By the end of WWI, scientists working for both warring parties had evaluated some 3,000 different chemicals for use as weapons. Even though poison gas didn't end up becoming an efficient killing weapon on WWI battlefields—it was responsible for less than 1% of WWI's fatalities--its adoption set a precedent for using chemicals to murder en masse. In the past century, poison gas has killed millions of civilians around the world: commuters on the Tokyo subway, anti-government demonstrators in Syria, and those incarcerated in Third Reich concentration camps. Everts profiles chemist Fritz Haber, the man who lobbied to unleash the gas that day in 1915.
Many Canadian troops outwitted the Germans during WWI by urinating on a cloth and holding it over their face to neutralize the effects of chlorine gas.
Our troops are awesome!
It's just too bad that we can't give the same respect to our "leaders".
Political correctness is really just herd psychology pushed by insecure people who desperately seek social conformity.
More than a few are also essentially pesticides. Both the V and G series organophosphate nerve agents were discovered in the course of pesticide research, and VG was even sold for agricultural use for a time, before the safety issues became apparent.
Fritz Haber was an interesting guy. He won a Nobel Prize for synthesizing ammonia from atmospheric hydrogen and nitrogen. This was the basis of nitrogen-rich fertilizer that basically fed the world by making crop lands more productive. But he also developed the chlorine gas for the german govt and advocated for its use. Two weeks after the first chlorine gas attack his wife killed herself with his service revolver after an argument over its use.
look at how much a modern day Germany produces mainly from within its own borders through using innovation and well-compensated laborers.
All it took was ten years of total war (WW1 + WW2), 46 years of occupation (1945 - 1990) and massive societal changes that were imposed at gunpoint. All that to civilize a mostly western country with whom we shared a common history, language, and religion. I wonder what it will take to civilize the middle east?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
To you he may be a hero, but to Southerners, he is a mass murderer of women and children
I'm guessing Black Southerners have a different opinion of him.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
id like to take time out of my busy day to remind slashdotters that before the invention of poison gas warfare, wars themselves would drag on forever. Sure, you had trenches and all that but disease was still a slow and tedious way to get to the point. machine guns might have been a teriffic improvement, but nothing is quite as effective as a good gas attack against "the enemy." Anyhow thats just my two cents, and i really need to be going as ive a full itinerary ahead of me. Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan...heck im not sure how ill make it to most of these African destinations but i sure people forgive my tardiness.
--Sincerely,
Death, the reaper
Destroyer of worlds.
P.S. im not sure what all the fuss about modern patriotism is. I've always supported both sides of the war.
Good people go to bed earlier.
The second you approve of a policy that restricts action X based on moral grounds, you have defined a vulnerability that a less ethical enemy will exploit.
Furthermore, when you're in a war, it's chaos. Bad stuff happens. Collateral damage happens. You certainly don't plan to inflict 1000 civilian casualties, but you can predict that in a city of 1 million people undergoing an all out conflagration, there will statistically be civilians killed, displaced, wounded, orphaned, starving, etc. You don't stop a war just because you're better at math.
War also isn't the first choice of a rational society. Diplomacy, negotiations, sanctions, pressure, demonstrations, all these kinds of activities are intended to solve the problem before it degenerates into war. But there is always another side, and if it degenerates to war, it's because at least one side was acting in bad faith. ISIL isn't even acting as a rational society. They don't negotiate - they enter an area, kidnap and rape the girls and take them forcibly as wives, and kill, conscript, or indenture the males. They use civilians as human shields, betting that an opposing force won't bomb their headquarters if they have them located in a schoolhouse full of children.
An outside society can do two things: allow the continued expansion of slavery and genocide, or attempt to stop it. If non-military resolutions fail, what would you have them do? "Sorry, you can't fight those insurgents because they duct-tape kidnapped children to the front of their vehicles." "Right, we'll just let them continue on their homicidal path because we can't place those children at risk."
It's not like anyone in the West wants civilian casualties. The moral high ground may not be perfect, and it may not be absolutely 100% civilian casualty free, but you can't claim a millimeter of moral high ground if you let the atrocities continue unchecked.
John
Spare me the Southern Pride nonsense and moral equivalency. The lion's share of States in the North had abolished slavery. The few slave states were those that remained loyal to the Union, rather than try and tear it asunder, and they were ultimately freed with the passage of the 13th Amendment.
There is no equation between the "clean hands" of the North and South on this particular issue. Nor is there on the issue of treason, since many of the most prominent leaders of the South (including their God, Robert E. Lee) swore oaths to the United States that they later broke. It's not a simple matter of someone fighting for home, these people specifically swore oaths to the United States. As far as I'm concerned the lot of them are traitors and the South got off easy for its crimes against the Union and Humanity.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I wonder what it will take to civilize the middle east?
It's best to stop decivilizing the middle east first. And then it will have to be occupied like Germany still is. The only thing keeping Europe from exploding again is America's irresistible force. I wish they would use that force to just tell rest of the world to STFU! Regardless, the world is relatively peaceful because of American nukes, which I think should be refreshed, to make sure they will work when needed. We have the power to toilet train this animal planet. We should use it!
I guess it depends on how much everyone learns from history or example. Of course, it's been joked that those who study history are condemned to watch others repeat it... :-(
http://www.historyisaweapon.co...
Those changes to Germany came from the values of a 1930s/1940s USA.
http://www.salon.com/2010/08/2...
"How did Germany become such a great place to work in the first place? The Allies did it. This whole European model came, to some extent, from the New Deal. Our real history and tradition is what we created in Europe. Occupying Germany after WWII, the 1945 European constitutions, the UN Charter of Human Rights all came from Eleanor Roosevelt and the New Dealers. All of it got worked into the constitutions of Europe and helped shape their social democracies. It came from us. The papal encyclicals on labor, it came from the Americans."
But, sadly, that USA and its values effectively no longer exist 70-80 years later. Today's USA has different values -- some are better (less racism and sexism overall, more respect for the environment), others are worse (less respect for workers, the "two-income trap", policies that promote a greater rich/poor divide, and more meddling in other nation's affairs which may produce profits for some connected few but produces huge costs for the whole USA let along the disrupted countries).
The real issue may be, like Gandhi is claimed to have said when asked by a journalist: "What do you think of Western civilization?", he said, "I think it would be a good idea."
http://quoteinvestigator.com/2...
At this point, as US citizen, I'm much more concerned about what the US government does both abroad and at home (including stuff like supporting a repressive Saudi Arabia, other actions abroad that make terrorist blowback more likely, domestic cage-like "free speech zones", domestic rulings saying border patrols can operate in a constitution-ignoring way up to 100 miles inland, etc.) -- than what people in the Middle East cradle of civilization do. And I remain always aware there are large numbers of nuclear weapons still ready to fly on short notice...
http://politics.slashdot.org/s...
http://www.salon.com/2015/01/2...
So, what will it take to civilize the USA? A basic income might be a start...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Hi - This is Sarah, the reporter on the chem weapons package. You are absolutely right that factories for producing seemingly OK/useful chemicals (dyes, pesticides) can easily be converted to making chemical weapons. After WWI, many chemists argued that there was no point making treaties against chemical weapons because you'd effectively have to outlaw the entire chemical industry... Chlorine gas & phosgene were both part of the dye industry. (Of course these chemists may have been swayed in their opinions by the promise of amazing funding for the weapons research.... but they did have a point on the factory front.)
Furthermore, there was no requirement to stay in the union when the US was formed
You've never read the Articles of Confederation, have you?
Your argument is basically, "The South held slaves, the North were angels trying to swoop down and protect the helpless slaves from their Southern oppressors. Sherman's killing of civilians is perfectly OK in that context."
Nope. My argument is that it was a total war and Sherman destroyed targets of military value. He didn't directly kill civilians; he rendered some civilians homeless, which is a difference that is apparently lost on you. The wanton killing and aimless destruction that you're imagining is a figment of Southern imagination. Special Field Orders No. 120, emphasis mine:
IV. The army will forage liberally on the country during the march. To this end, each brigade commander will organize a good and sufficient foraging party, under the command of one or more discreet officers, who will gather, near the route traveled, corn or forage of any kind, meat of any kind, vegetables, corn-meal, or whatever is needed by the command, aiming at all times to keep in the wagons at least ten day's provisions for the command and three days' forage. Soldiers must not enter the dwellings of the inhabitants, or commit any trespass, but during a halt or a camp they may be permitted to gather turnips, apples, and other vegetables, and to drive in stock of their camp. To regular foraging parties must be instructed the gathering of provisions and forage at any distance from the road traveled.
V. To army corps commanders alone is entrusted the power to destroy mills, houses, cotton-gins, etc., and for them this general principle is laid down: In districts and neighborhoods where the army is unmolested no destruction of such property should be permitted; but should guerrillas or bushwhackers molest our march, or should the inhabitants burn bridges, obstruct roads, or otherwise manifest local hostility, then army commanders should order and enforce a devastation more or less relentless according to the measure of such hostility.
VI. As for horses, mules, wagons, etc, belonging to the inhabitants, the cavalry and artillery may appropriate freely and without limit, discriminating, however, between the rich, who are usually hostile, and the poor or industrious, usually neutral or friendly. Foraging parties may also take mules or horses to replace the jaded animals of their trains, or to serve as pack-mules for the regiments or brigades. In all foraging, of whatever kind, the parties engaged will refrain from abusive or threatening language, and may, where the officer in command thinks proper, give written certificates of the facts, but no receipts, and they will endeavor to leave with each family a reasonable portion for their maintenance....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.