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

[Unkotare]

Does anyone really believe we don’t have a shit load of them stashed away somewhere? Come on now.

 

[Dayton3]

Does anyone really believe we don’t have a shit load of them stashed away somewhere? Come on now.

Why would we? The U.S. despite what some people like to claim doesn't make it a practice of violating treaties.

 

[Unkotare]

Does anyone really believe we don’t have a shit load of them stashed away somewhere? Come on now.

Why would we? The U.S. despite what some people like to claim doesn't make it a practice of violating treaties.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

And we have enough Air and Sea Power in the region we can prevent any logistics in NK without either Nukes for NBC weapons. The ONLY thing that NK has is that initial thrust of Artillery aimed at Sole. Once that initial barrage is done with, NK is toast.

 

[Silver Cat]

First of all, we still have some of this useless sh-t at the Blue Grass Army Depot, Kentucky and the U.S. Army Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado.

Second, it could be useful only against untrained and unequipped militants. The last regular army crushed with the significant usage of chemical weapon was Ethiopian one, in 1935.

The modern regular armies have NRBC-units and, what is even more important - discipline and morality.

 

[harmonica]

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?

''everyone would agree''''????!! = wrong
why would using nukes be a bad idea?

 

[harmonica]

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.

....airpower/etc would keep the NKs from ''''MARCHING'''' thousands of infantry
..the military has MOPP gear --ever hear of it?
..we trained with it.....if you knew about the military, you would know about it

MOPP (protective gear) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[harmonica]

....MOPP gear...you see, --like I've stated many times- people do not think in realistic terms--you think like it's a board game ..

MOPP (protective gear) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

 

[JimBowie1958]

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.

It didnt really die off, it was a case of better alternatives - bombs and air support.

 

[Dayton3]

....MOPP gear...you see, --like I've stated many times- people do not think in realistic terms--you think like it's a board game ..

MOPP (protective gear) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

And just how effective is North Korean MOPP gear? I doubt it is remotely as good as that used by the United States or its allies.

 

[Crepitus]

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?

I'm pretty sure we have a good stockpile somewhere.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

We're so far beyond chlorine (mustard) gas it's not even remotely funny. VX is deadly at extreme dilution (a few ppm if I recall correctly) and persists for years.

 

[HenryBHough]

Wars are for winning.

There's a name for a nation that won't retaliate in kind but BIGGER:

"Loser".

 

[harmonica]

....MOPP gear...you see, --like I've stated many times- people do not think in realistic terms--you think like it's a board game ..

MOPP (protective gear) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

And just how effective is North Korean MOPP gear? I doubt it is remotely as good as that used by the United States or its allies.

..the MOPP gear protects you from chem weapons---so it doesn't matter what the NKs would have---according to your OP
...they might have state of the art MOPP gear--idk

 

[night_son]

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?

My father-in-law is a recently retired chemical engineer who worked as a civilian for the US Army for 39 years. The belief that we, the United States, no longer possess chemical weapons is a fantasy. In fact, just last year the Army asked my father-in-laws' chemical corps team to develop a new weapon. While I do not know the specifics I can only imagine the weapon they developed was quite nasty indeed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Mustard agents were very bad... And very persistent.

Not for 70 years.

Some areas of Germany can not be tilled up to this day.

Link?

 

[Dayton3]

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?

I'm pretty sure we have a good stockpile somewhere.

based on what evidence?

 

[Dayton3]

....MOPP gear...you see, --like I've stated many times- people do not think in realistic terms--you think like it's a board game ..

MOPP (protective gear) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

.

And just how effective is North Korean MOPP gear? I doubt it is remotely as good as that used by the United States or its allies.

..the MOPP gear protects you from chem weapons---so it doesn't matter what the NKs would have---according to your OP
...they might have state of the art MOPP gear--idk

You are way too sanctimonious about your supposed military knowledge.

 

[Dayton3]

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?

My father-in-law is a recently retired chemical engineer who worked as a civilian for the US Army for 39 years. The belief that we, the United States, no longer possess chemical weapons is a fantasy. In fact, just last year the Army asked my father-in-laws' chemical corps team to develop a new weapon. While I do not know the specifics I can only imagine the weapon they developed was quite nasty indeed.

Prove it.

 

[Dayton3]

Mustard agents were very bad... And very persistent.

Not for 70 years.

Some areas of Germany can not be tilled up to this day.

Link?

No one is talking about Mustard gas.