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

[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?

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.

Chemical weapons are great for area denial, particularly in deep valleys. Depending on the terrain, chemical weapons can be deployed with little threat to friendly forces, which would not be positioned in any area of effect to begin with.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

• VX is the least volatile of the nerve agents, which means that it is the slowest to evaporate from a liquid into a vapor. Therefore, VX is persistent in the environment. Under average weather conditions, VX can last for days on objects that it has come in contact with. Under very cold conditions, VX can last for months.

CDC | Facts About VX

Information on terrorism and public health. Provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

emergency.cdc.gov

 

[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?

No one is talking about Mustard gas.

Looks like Billy is..........

 

[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

You are way too sanctimonious about your supposed military knowledge.

been reading-researching war/etc for over 40 years
..in the USMC for 8 years
I DO know more than you

 

[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

You are way too sanctimonious about your supposed military knowledge.

....and it's not just the knowledge of the military/etc--like I said, a LOT of people think like it's a board game......ie: MOPP gear which a lot of you people never even heard of

 

[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.

based on what evidence?

Human nature.

 

[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.

Prove it.

You are a temperamental little fellow, now aren't you? But back to the topic of your OP. There exist several subterranean weapons vaults built during the mid to late Cold War which are used to store all kinds of chemical and biological weapons—and much worse things one could only call weapons of mutual destruction. At least two of these vaults exist in Alaska. Some of them used to have functional railroad tracks leading straight to their "front doors". But times change and funding dries up and some of the vaults were abandoned, sealed up. Beyond that, I am not concerned with that you believe or do not believe.

 

[Likkmee]

1800-Monsanto. 2 hours

 

[night_son]

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.

Modern chemical weapons are not designed as direct application offensive killing munitions. They are engineered to poison an area . . . say, a couple of grid squares . . . so that anyone entering said area is not only themselves poisoned but carries the poison back to command centers, other enemy units, etc.

 

[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.

Modern chemical weapons are not designed as direct application offensive killing munitions. They are engineered to poison an area . . . say, a couple of grid squares . . . so that anyone entering said area is not only themselves poisoned but carries the poison back to command centers, other enemy units, etc.

Persistent chemical weapons are literally a mess to use.

 

[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.

....and it's not just the knowledge of the military/etc--like I said, a LOT of people think like it's a board game......ie: MOPP gear which a lot of you people never even heard of

I was fully aware of MOPP gear. studying the military and 30 years of military history along with teaching history has that effect.

 

[Dayton3]

1800-Monsanto. 2 hours

herbicides, insecticides, and defoiliants as well as CS or tear gas I would never consider "chemical weapons".

 

[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

You are way too sanctimonious about your supposed military knowledge.

....and it's not just the knowledge of the military/etc--like I said, a LOT of people think like it's a board game......ie: MOPP gear which a lot of you people never even heard of

I was fully aware of MOPP gear. studying the military and 30 years of military history along with teaching history has that effect.

..but you never mentioned it .......it's not like the military is stupid ......it's not like they don't have countermeasures for all the board game OPs on USMB

 

[Likkmee]

How long does it take to roll up a warehouse door ?

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Agreeing to that was treasonous.

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

Signing those treaties was treason.

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.

Many chemical weapons dissipate or decay fairly quickly. (Indeed: some nerve agents are, gone in less than a week.)

 

[Jarlaxle]

Mustard agents were very bad... And very persistent. Some areas of Germany can not be tilled up to this day.

Sarin is a much better choice.

 

[Jarlaxle]

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.

Pablum.

 

[esalla]

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?

LOL what makes you think that the USA does not have chemical weapons developed?

 

[esalla]

I could cook up a batch before morning.

You still snorting meth while drawing cartoons of yourself

 

[esalla]

....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.

....and it's not just the knowledge of the military/etc--like I said, a LOT of people think like it's a board game......ie: MOPP gear which a lot of you people never even heard of

I was fully aware of MOPP gear. studying the military and 30 years of military history along with teaching history has that effect.

Look kid, go read the next chapter in your history book, because none of that matters