this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024

188 points (99.0% liked)

NonCredibleDefense

6598 readers

720 users here now

A community for your defence shitposting needs

Rules

1. Be nice

Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.

2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes

If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.

3. Content must be relevant

Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.

4. No racism / hatespeech

No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.

5. No politics

We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.

6. No seriousposting

We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.

7. No classified material

Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.

8. Source artwork

If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.

9. No low-effort posts

No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.

10. Don't get us banned

No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.

11. No misinformation

NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.

Join our Matrix chatroom

Other communities you may be interested in

Banner made by u/Fertility18

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Shit@sh.itjust.works

OttoVonNoob@lemmy.ca

fist_of_fartitude@sh.itjust.works

verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works

verity_kindle@lemmy.world

skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de

nuke@sh.itjust.works

skillissuer@sh.itjust.works

Estiar@sh.itjust.works

neidu2@feddit.nl

neidu3@sh.itjust.works

188

Don't break the laws of war. Be the reason there needs to BE a law! (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 weeks ago by PugJesus@lemmy.world to c/noncredibledefense@sh.itjust.works

37 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 37 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 52 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Explanation: A brilliant fellow by the name of John Doughty during the US Civil War suggested getting a head start on the atrocity carousel by initiating mass chemical warfare about 50 years early. This is by no means a concerning idea, and Mr. Doughty was doubtlessly a wholly sane and stable individual. Luckily, the suggestion was not adopted.

Funny enough, the Lieber Code adopted by the Union during the Civil War, dealing with the rules of warfare, DOES actually prohibit the use of poison, so this idea would have been illegal even at the time.

[–] Aqarius@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The first recorded modern proposal for the use of chemical warfare was made by Lyon Playfair

Hmmm..

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Playfair? I think he's lyon'.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

What was the cost of chlorine at this point? Were they doing chloralkali at any reasonable scale? If so, this would plausibly have changed the entire evolution of warfare in the late 19th century.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Quick wiki search suggests that they knew about the process at this point, but it wouldn't be done on a commercial scale for another 30 or so years.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Shoot, I probably should have just searched it myself. I guess I was trying to start a conversation.

Depending on how successful chemical warfare hypothetically would have been, it may have helped the process get going faster. To do electrolysis you need DC electricity. At first, the only real source was primary-cell batteries, which are at least as expensive as the materials they're made out of, but Micheal Faraday built the first homopolar generator in 1831 and practical industrial-scale dynamos appeared (simultaneously from multiple inventors) right around the time in question.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago

chortles maniacally in Canadian

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago

"See Lisa? Because of me, they have a warning."

[+] kitnaht@lemmy.world -31 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (5 children)

There are no such thing as laws of war. War is the loss of authority and civility. Laws require both. Sure, we can make laws of war, but as we've seen time and time again, nobody follows them. Violence is the only law that nature knows.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 37 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Okay Cicero, let's get you back to your isolated country estate

[+] PuddleOfKittens@sh.itjust.works -11 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (4 children)

The reason chemical weapons are banned is because (they're monstrous and) they're useless. You can fire a chlorine shell and if the wind is juuust right, it'll kill anyone within a few meters. You know what else will kill anyone within a few meters? A normal artillery shell.

Except, chlorine gas can be blocked by an airtight gas mask and a chemical suit. They cost less than $500 for complete immunity to the weapon. Good luck finding a $500 flak vest that'll stop a mortar though. And meanwhile, if you want to press the attack and benefit from your chemical weapons, there's one slight problem before you advance: there's a bunch of chlorine gas in the way.

In other words, it's an unreliable and inferior weapon that gets in the way of modern military doctrine. Although there are some good niches in shitty armies by dictators who are too paranoid of coups to give their junior officers any independence or proper kit. Like the Iraq army that the US army utterly steamrolled in 2005.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Far from useless against unprotected troops - especially in area denial and degrading enemy combat effectiveness. The real issue of practicality is that they're a matter of mutual deterrent - if Side A starts using chemical weapons, Side B may decide to start as well. But as you mentioned, we've solved the issue of protective equipment pretty thoroughly, so in all but the most lopsided of conflicts (Iran-Iraq War, Syrian Civil War, police against protesters), escalation does not actually give either side an advantage beyond the initial shock, and introduces a lot of unnecessary defensive and offensive logistics, the total effect of which is likely difficult to determine. How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth keeping a platoon of soldiers in gas masks for a few hours longer? How many millions of dollars of chemical shells are worth the enemy shelling you in turn and forcing you to spend valuable resources and logistics lines on NBC gear? Who comes out with the advantage in this asymmetric exchange - the one with more resources, or the one with fewer? Nightmare to tell.

Russia currently is using chemical weapons effectively in Ukraine - namely, tear gas. Great for disabling dug-in enemies so ~~mobik meat cube ingredients~~ mass infantry assaults can advance. We (the West) also use chemical weapons effectively - we claim WP as a smokescreen, but its application tends to be very, uh, 'dual-use' in smoking troops out of entrenched positions. In both cases, the effectiveness relies on deniability and prevention of escalation.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

Fun fact about tear gas - they'll spray down protesters with it, but if it was used in warfare it would pretty obviously break the principal of not using maiming weapons, which was laid down in the Hague convention and mostly continues to be respected by big militaries.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Tear gas was one of the first chemical weapons deployed in WW1, even.

"Can't be a war crime if it's not during war time!" - Cops

(unironically I actually understand the rationale, but it remains absurd on its face)

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah, "mostly" was pretty load bearing there, haha. It's just odd that enemy soldiers end up having more rights than civilians in certain contexts.

Prison escapes being highly illegal in some jurisdictions is another example.

[–] nuke@sh.itjust.works 12 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Disagree. Gas is perfect for underground bunkers. Being heavier than air it will sink down into the bunker and displace oxygen. Sure you can wear a suit, but for how long? And do you have enough suits for everyone?

On the bright side, think of how clean all our pools are going to be with all this chlorine everywhere.

[–] verity_kindle@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago

I really enjoy the smell of a perfectly balanced pool in the summer.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

I mean, if you have undisputed access to the ventilation that's far from your only option to flush people out.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Well, if there's an element of surprise you can do some serious damage. This is also why nobody uses bright green, smelly chlorine anymore. PugJesus covered the real logic.

You were close to right, though. Upvote just to offset all the downvotes.

[–] P00ptart@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

Clearly you've never been in the military. Let's say the enemy one day drops leaflets saying they will gas your position every 12 hours at 8 AM and 8 PM every day. You're prepared with your gas mask and full NBC gear every 12 hrs. No danger at all right? Wrong. Even if nobody dies at all from the gas, the act of putting that stuff on twice a day will quickly give someone PTSD.

What if I forget or lose my suit?!? What if I oversleep my alarm?!? Are those army dudes at the treeline? I can't see out of this thing! I can't breathe! Fuuuuuck!!!!! The psychological effect is arguably worse than the weapons themselves seeing as the psych patients don't even have to be hit by it to feel lifelong damaging effects.

[–] ChicoSuave@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You clearly have never fought and don't know that supply lines and order are crucial to war. If combat devolved into some inhumane, amoral tragedy for every interaction, nothing would be accomplished. But war is about forcibly stopping an opponent, not about going crazy and ignoring all sense or rules. Chemical weapons require an insane amount of discipline to make, move, store, use, and dispose of some of the most dangerous ordinance imaginable.

"War is lawless" is what the naive say. Experience knows better.

[–] RandomStickman@fedia.io 10 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Laws not stopping murder doesn't mean laws against murder are useless

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

They're not even against murder. You can explode or bury people all you want. It's just rules especially really nasty or unnecessary murder, where people have managed to agree to give it up, and it holds up reasonably well in many cases.

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So why are we not seeing CBRN weapons in Ukraine if nobody follows them? They are all far more effective than conventional weapons.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

Uh............................

https://europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/the-alleged-use-of-chemical-weapons-in-ukraine-how-the-international-community-can-investigate/

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russia-used-chemical-weapons-ukraine-and-now-paying-price-213155

What was that again?

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm fairly certain they were talking about Ukraine using them if nobody followed the laws of war.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Ukraine is the defender in a war waged against them. This isn't their war.

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 6 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

And that's relevant because...?

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

https://old.lemmy.world/comment/13024630

[–] Vendetta9076@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You've lost the plot.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world -3 points 2 weeks ago

You apparently never had it.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes, we all saw. It's still not clear what you mean.

[–] kitnaht@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

pebkac.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yes, the problem is definitely everyone else. /s

[–] Eheran@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

A one time use, if at all, of a substance that is also a pesticide can hardly be compared to an actual use of serious chemicals on a broad front. If that actually happened, it could very well have been a single officer finding the pesticide in a farm and letting them drop it with drones.

It is like saying airbags do not help because once one person was killed by them. The obviously do help.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 4 points 2 weeks ago

You follow the rules of war because it's in your interests to do so. You treat POWs fairly, because you want your opponent to treat your own captured people fairly. You don't pull a false surrender move, because that will come back to haunt you when you need to actually surrender. You don't use chemical weapons, because using them would mean your opponent starts using them.

Granted, this tends to work better with peer powers. When there's an imbalance, the larger power often gets to do whatever they want.