How fast could the U.S. develop chemical weapons?

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
458
Reaction score
133
Points
178
We used to have plenty of them of course but we destroyed all of them to abide by treaties.

But.

I'm troubled by the U.S. not having at least some chemical weapons allowing us to "retaliate in kind" against a chemical weapons attack. For example if the North Koreans invaded South Korea and used their chemical weapons against South Korean and American military targets, the only way the U.S. could retaliate would be to use nuclear weapons. I think everyone would agree that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea even against a nation that has used chemical weapons.

So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?
 

JimBowie1958

Old Fogey
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
63,384
Reaction score
16,174
Points
2,220
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
We used to have plenty of them of course but we destroyed all of them to abide by treaties.

But.

I'm troubled by the U.S. not having at least some chemical weapons allowing us to "retaliate in kind" against a chemical weapons attack. For example if the North Koreans invaded South Korea and used their chemical weapons against South Korean and American military targets, the only way the U.S. could retaliate would be to use nuclear weapons. I think everyone would agree that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea even against a nation that has used chemical weapons.

So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?
We don't need chemical weapons to respond at the same tactical level. We have plenty of very accurate bombs for that.

Chemical weapons go with the wind and can come back on your friends and allies as easily as hurt the enemy they are intended for.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,276
Reaction score
11,990
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
We used to have plenty of them of course but we destroyed all of them to abide by treaties.

But.

I'm troubled by the U.S. not having at least some chemical weapons allowing us to "retaliate in kind" against a chemical weapons attack. For example if the North Koreans invaded South Korea and used their chemical weapons against South Korean and American military targets, the only way the U.S. could retaliate would be to use nuclear weapons. I think everyone would agree that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea even against a nation that has used chemical weapons.

So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?
NO need... What we transport on train cars here in the US is leathal enough... We could load up a MOAB with it very quickly..
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
26,460
Reaction score
11,224
Points
950
All weapons, even nuclear ones, are based on chemistry.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,276
Reaction score
11,990
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?
Item 1; Chemical weapons were outlawed by the Geneva convention on a global level.

Item 2; Chemical weapons were destroyed under the SALT II AND OTHER TREATIES.

CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS will do what we need and not poison the environment. To this day, there are fields in Germany where simply tilling the soil will kill the farmers.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,276
Reaction score
11,990
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
I could cook up a batch before morning.
Most of these people do not understand what is under thier kitchen sink and how lethal it is if mixed correctly..
Most people don't understand that reality TV isn't real.

Don't be too hard on them.
Back in the late 70's I worked at Dugway Proving Grounds (AKA: Deseret Chemical Depot/Tooele Army Depot South Area). This is where they created the de-milling process for chemical weapons. Most people dont have a clue what we had and what we could have done not to many years ago.

Some of the testing grids out in the desert are still lethal to humans to this day.. Not to mention that some of the munitions are still surfacing......
 

fncceo

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2016
Messages
26,460
Reaction score
11,224
Points
950
I could cook up a batch before morning.
Most of these people do not understand what is under thier kitchen sink and how lethal it is if mixed correctly..
Most people don't understand that reality TV isn't real.

Don't be too hard on them.
Back in the late 70's I worked at Dugway Proving Grounds (AKA: Deseret Chemical Depot/Tooele Army Depot South Area). This is where they created the de-milling process for chemical weapons. Most people dont have a clue what we had and what we could have done not to many years ago.
I've done work at Tooele. I installed BBN Nodes there in the 80s.
 

Ben Thomson

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
2,070
Reaction score
1,241
Points
1,893
We used to have plenty of them of course but we destroyed all of them to abide by treaties.

But.

I'm troubled by the U.S. not having at least some chemical weapons allowing us to "retaliate in kind" against a chemical weapons attack. For example if the North Koreans invaded South Korea and used their chemical weapons against South Korean and American military targets, the only way the U.S. could retaliate would be to use nuclear weapons. I think everyone would agree that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea even against a nation that has used chemical weapons.

So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?
But?.. but what..to hell with the treaties, let's build them anyway so we can gas some civilians in retaliation??
 
OP
Dayton3

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
458
Reaction score
133
Points
178
So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?
Item 1; Chemical weapons were outlawed by the Geneva convention on a global level.

Item 2; Chemical weapons were destroyed under the SALT II AND OTHER TREATIES.

CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS will do what we need and not poison the environment. To this day, there are fields in Germany where simply tilling the soil will kill the farmers.
SALT II (never ratified by the U.S. by the way) was strictly a strategic nuclear arms treaty.

You can deploy chemical weapons that are non persistent and will cause little environmental damage.
 
OP
Dayton3

Dayton3

Gold Member
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
458
Reaction score
133
Points
178
We used to have plenty of them of course but we destroyed all of them to abide by treaties.

But.

I'm troubled by the U.S. not having at least some chemical weapons allowing us to "retaliate in kind" against a chemical weapons attack. For example if the North Koreans invaded South Korea and used their chemical weapons against South Korean and American military targets, the only way the U.S. could retaliate would be to use nuclear weapons. I think everyone would agree that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea even against a nation that has used chemical weapons.

So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?
But?.. but what..to hell with the treaties, let's build them anyway so we can gas some civilians in retaliation??
Two point

1) The point of having chemical weapons is to DETER a chemical attack.
2) Even if the U.S. used them in retaliation, the point of them would NOT be to kill civilians. The point would be area denial. For example on the Korean peninsula to keep the North Koreans from marching thousands of infantry along an important road.
 

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
46,875
Reaction score
10,680
Points
2,040
Location
Western Va.
What kind of chemical weapons are envisioned by modern military strategists? There is a limit on the effectiveness of chemical weapons depending on humidity and of course wind direction. Chlorine doesn't seem like a good idea even if it was legal. C.S. gas worked effectively against an enclosed area in the Clinton/Waco standoff but I don't think it would be effective on the battlefield. The problem is that the concept of chemical warfare died out in WW1.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,276
Reaction score
11,990
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?
Item 1; Chemical weapons were outlawed by the Geneva convention on a global level.

Item 2; Chemical weapons were destroyed under the SALT II AND OTHER TREATIES.

CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS will do what we need and not poison the environment. To this day, there are fields in Germany where simply tilling the soil will kill the farmers.
SALT II (never ratified by the U.S. by the way) was strictly a strategic nuclear arms treaty.

You can deploy chemical weapons that are non persistent and will cause little environmental damage.
As I recall there were subsections addressing chemical munitions. I will go look but SALT set up time lines for weapons destruction and verification's.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
25,276
Reaction score
11,990
Points
1,280
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
We used to have plenty of them of course but we destroyed all of them to abide by treaties.

But.

I'm troubled by the U.S. not having at least some chemical weapons allowing us to "retaliate in kind" against a chemical weapons attack. For example if the North Koreans invaded South Korea and used their chemical weapons against South Korean and American military targets, the only way the U.S. could retaliate would be to use nuclear weapons. I think everyone would agree that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea even against a nation that has used chemical weapons.

So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?
But?.. but what..to hell with the treaties, let's build them anyway so we can gas some civilians in retaliation??
Two point

1) The point of having chemical weapons is to DETER a chemical attack.
2) Even if the U.S. used them in retaliation, the point of them would NOT be to kill civilians. The point would be area denial. For example on the Korean peninsula to keep the North Koreans from marching thousands of infantry along an important road.
Mustard agents were very bad... And very persistent. Some areas of Germany can not be tilled up to this day.
 

Dick Foster

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2018
Messages
8,333
Reaction score
4,914
Points
1,065
Location
The People's Republic of the Californicated
We used to have plenty of them of course but we destroyed all of them to abide by treaties.

But.

I'm troubled by the U.S. not having at least some chemical weapons allowing us to "retaliate in kind" against a chemical weapons attack. For example if the North Koreans invaded South Korea and used their chemical weapons against South Korean and American military targets, the only way the U.S. could retaliate would be to use nuclear weapons. I think everyone would agree that using nuclear weapons is a bad idea even against a nation that has used chemical weapons.

So how quickly could the U.S. build more chemical weapons in order to deter a potential chemical weapons attack on the Korean peninsula or elsewhere?
Once you know how its a matter of hours, days for a large amount. Gotta get the ingredients together but the rest is like baking a cake and following a recipe.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top