This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
NBC weapons were never considered morally equivalent, and the use of WMD was not due to the division between bio and chem weapons.
I think the toxic smoke used in the Battle of Sevastopol during WWII should be mentioned, and the poisoned arrows that the Scythians used should be mentioned as well. Axeman89 13:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I can't think of any way to link Lewisite into this article. I thinbk it deserves a mention though. Geni 00:44, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The first Chemical warfare agent which was used in WW I was chlorine by Fritz Haber. This is a lung agent which is one big groupe of chemical warvare agent which is missing.
If you mention Zyclon B as chemical warfare it gives the impression of a war against the Jews, which is absolutely misleading. Zyclon B is a simple poisonous gas which was never used in a war. It was a cheap isecticide, which was used for economic reasons to poison millions of innocent civilans.
If you mention Zyclon B then you have to mention also the gas chamber for capital punishment in which the same chemicals are used as in concentration camps HCN.
Germany was not the first country to employ chemical weapons in the first world war. France used tear gas in 1914. User:24.158.216.90
Regarding Zyklon B: there has been some debate as to whether the use of Zyklon B by the Nazis to exterminate human beings constitutes chemical warfare.
On one hand, it's not technically an act of war. On the other hand, it was a horrific act of genocide. At the moment, I'm somewhat torn (though I'm leaning towards accepting it because of the latter).
Genocide is not warfare. To extend this you would also have to add CO which was also used. Geni 03:54, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To play Devil's Advocate, it can be argued that genocide is an act of aggression similar to, but worse than, war. To extend that same argument, it is not the equivalent of capital punishment because it is not a sentace resulting from a crime. What are your thought? ClockworkTroll 04:05, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Genocide may or may not be worse than war. It is not however war. Geni 04:28, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I saw above that your opposition to listing the use of Zyklon B on this page is based on the fact that we would then need to list chemicals employed in
capital punishment, implying that you feel that Zyklon's use in this capacity is a moral equivalent to capital punishment. Am I wrong in this deduction?
Also, I'm curious as to how you define war. The The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition defines it as "A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties". Does the Nazi activites against the Jews and other minorities not fit this definition? ClockworkTroll 16:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't find any referance to which gas was used. Anyone know? Geni 08:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The number of estimated deaths in this attack varies from source to source. I used the numbers from this article (Christine Gosden, The Washington Post, Wednesday 11 March 1998; Page A19). – [[User:ClockworkSoul| User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 23:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I noticed that you made some very insightful changes to the article, and that the IP originates from a military TLD. I have two questions for you:
[[User:ClockworkSoul| User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 21:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Today I removed this section:
I cannot find any source for this statement, and I'm not comfortable with its presence until I find some verification. From I know about mustard reactivity, it doesn't seem to make much sense (it reacts violently with water). If anybody can find something supporting the above statement, feel free to add it back into the main article along with the resource from which it came.
Clockwork Soul 00:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Sorry its all in German but I saw several reports about it and for me there was no way of mis understanding the topic. The reaktivity against water is not very high the water is a real bad nucleophile for SN2 reaktions the internal reaktion with the Sulfure is by far faster but even with this intramolekular reactive sight it is still storable. If it would reacte fast with water decontermination would be easy, which is not true. A ABC-Defence privat from Germany)
http://www.grosse-seefahrt.de/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=222 stone 23 Dec 2004
OK but here are some more links:
http://dc2.uni-bielefeld.de/dc2/kampfst/lost.htm http://www.heute.t-online.de/ZDFheute/artikel/7/0,1367,POL-0-2025959,00.html http://www.tagesthemen.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID1119116_TYP6_THE1119246_NAV1307088~1277980~1119246_REF12216,00.html http://www.broschwitz-berlin.de/spiel/presse7.htm
All of it is in german, but all of it points out that it is dangerous to search for amber at the shore of the baltic sea.
The first reaction mustard agent will undergo with water will be substitution of chlorines for hydroxyl groups via an sn2 mechanism to produce thiodiglycol. However, if these shells are sitting on the bottom of the ocean, the conditions will be mostly anhydrous until the shell erodes away. In that circumstance, the polymerization reactions associated with mustard could occur, which would probably produce a more stable, solid, poisonous mass. I'll have to find articles detailing all of this... Pjanini1 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Here's a paper that refers to the reactivity of water to mustard to form thiodiglycol quickly.
Ohsawa I, Kanamori-Kataoka M, Tsuge K, et al.
Determination of thiodiglycol, a mustard gas hydrolysis product by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry after tert-butyldimethylsilylation JOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A 1061 (2): 235-241 DEC 24 2004 131.96.149.151 14:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Viscous mustard What you have been talking about is the so-calle viscous mustard, "Zaehlost" in German. This was a mixture of mustard and organic polymers, intentionally giving the mustard a consistence like cold honey. This product was fille in shells as well as the infamous "Sprühbüchse 37", both of which were produzced in large quantities. The Sprühbüchse corrodes very easily, and the thickened mustard floats through the sea. Naturally, fish go to areas where they are not likely to be caught; and these were the dump areas for chemical ammo. Although fishing in these areas was and still is prohibited, Fishermen went there too - 'cause they knew, the fish would be there. And, surprise, up in the net came not only fish, but also lumps of viscous mustard. When I was a kid, it was quite normal for fishermen to return with mustard burns.
Hope that helps. A.Grabowski 12:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
not Lost but Phosphorus! Some of the articles posted above say clearly, that the wax-like substance in request is white phosphorus and not some form of Lost. The phosphorus comes from incindiary bombs dumped there by the british when the war was over. -- Gremi-ch ( talk) 17:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Nope. White phosphorous will react violently with water. What we're talking about is viscous mustard; look up the details in the " mustard gas" article. Greetings, Lost Boy ( talk) 06:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Of course Lost can be found there but the substance that can be found at the shores is Phosphorus! It will react when it dries in your pockets and set them on fire... there are numerous cases of that happening every year. And Lost doesn't burn very well ;-) -- Gremi-ch ( talk) 12:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
The article twice states that biological weapons are not chemical weapons or words to that effect. I would either suggest romving on mention or putting "as previously stated"(or something along those lines) in frount of the second mention. Opinions?
Who claims such weapons were used in Vietnam? Cite? Other than the odd and false story of Operation Tailwind on CNN, I know of no such claim? (here I would put my three-tilde signature, but being as I am at my Mother's machine and cannot find the darn tilde...) Paul in Saudi
Why are we not discussing the use of Agent Orange? -- Tothebarricades.tk 01:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Just glancing through the article, the following seemed a bit off:
"a liquid that evaporates quickly and generates toxic fumes (such liquids are said to be volatile or have a high vapor pressure)." Shouldn't this be a low vapor pressure?
"Dioxin-based Agent Orange, known for its long term cancer effects." well known, of course, but I was lead to understand that the defoliant 2,4-D (Agent orange) was not dioxin-based, rather that TCDD (dioxin) was simply a contaminant in the mixture; a horrific one, with no known safe-exposure limit.
Can anyone confirm or deny? 63.249.109.82 02:40, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I followed the link from the main page to this article (it was a feature article) and noticed something very ugly. On this page, the table entitled "Chemical Warfare Technology Timeline" had somehow floated on top of the paragraph next to it, thus rendered the paragraph unreadable! I tried resizing my browser window, reloading the page, and the problem remained still. I am a little disappointed to miss part of such a nice article. I am using Internet Explorer 6 on Windows XP, if that helps with the technical people find a fix for this.
Napalm and Agent Orange aren't true chemical weapons, so why is there a section devoted to their history here? Perhaps it should be moved to one or both of those respective articles instead? – Clockwork Soul 15:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following text for the above reason:
[[:Image:TrangBang.jpg|left|120px|thumb| Kim Phuc at Trang Bang ( Nick Ut / © Associated Press)]]
By what criteria is a chemical designed for warfare not a chemical weapon? And by what criteria is a chemical used substantially in warfare for the purposes of warfare not a 'true chemical weapon?' I think that you have censored the article according to a narrow bias – one which seeks to censor or exclude material which is embarrasing to a particular point of view. It would an absolute abomination if such relevant material were not in the article. I wish to restore that text immediately. Jamex
I plan to contribute information regarding anitdotes and NBC protective equipment. My experience as a Chemical Operations Specialist can provide some insight on these subjects. And what I contribute will be unclassified knowledge. -cajunman4life
For many terrorist organizations, chemical weapons are an ideal choice for a mode of attack
I'm not sure if this is true. The only examples of sucessfull terrorism using Chem weapons given in this article are, the application of an arsenic-containing mixture to loaves of bread, sickening more than 2000 prisoners, of whom more than 200 required hospitalization in 1946. (Did it even manage to kill anyone?) and the released sarin into the Tokyo subway system in 1995 killing 12, though it is also noted that 10 other attacks failed.
Given the fact that there have been many "successfull" terrorist bomb attacks through out the years that have had far more affect then these chem or bio attacks, how can it be that they are an ideal choice for a mode of attack?
Also this website
Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research says this of chem and bio weapons
"Experts say biological and chemical agents are used more as a threat against small groups than as actual weapons aimed at large populations. This may be in part because they're difficult to deploy.
A controlled release of anthrax spores, for instance, can be tricky because of shifting winds. Tularemia-causing bacteria could be destroyed by the very bomb set to unleash the disease over a community by exploding. And nerve gases eventually dissipate once released into the air.
The expertise needed in handling and producing the various viruses and chemicals also makes them difficult to use as weapons in war or terrorism. Although bacteria, viruses and chemicals can be produced in a laboratory, the actual release of these agents requires technical skill and special equipment. Those who try to create or use these agents place themselves at great risk."
Ideal weapon or ideal scare story?
See
Bioterrorism - Scare Stories Can Be Dangerous to Our Health
Also,
Weapons of mass hysteria an article in the
Guardian by Army advisor Simon Wessely.
JK the unwise 11:51, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I hope there is not specific reason the picture must be taken between 1917-1918 instead of 1914-1918 because I'm reverting due to the unfortunate editing history of 62.252.64.18 ( talk · contributions). Shinobu 02:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia uses SI only. When talking about a so-and-so-inch shell, you cannot do this, because it is an exact value. A shell with the metric approximation for it's diameter won't fit.
On the other hand, there is no reason at all for the appearance of the other non SI units in this article, so I will remove them if I spot them. Could someone with a background in chemistry check the amount of chlorine gas that corresponds to 2 to 3 litres? Bye, Shinobu 21:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A style guide, rather than a policy. The full reply is on your talk page. Someone reverted the edits, by the way. Since this is an international dictionary, and non SI units don't mean anything to most people, I decided to change it. I thought having the values stated in two unit systems is a bit superfluous. Also, if one should "translate" units, one might as well add the Roman, Japanese, Russian, etc. units. I'm not going to undo the revert for now, but I will linger around. Shinobu 23:52, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All the nations you listed use SI units... That is not entirely true. In Roman times, SI units did not exist yet ;-) They used things like the gradus. (In fact, thats where the English system comes from.) Japan officially uses SI, but I've seen the unit 里 in use. Same story on the Russian верста́ (about one kilometre, but not quite). These units have the same status as old units in parts of Europe. Only in the UK miles still have a legal status. In the US all old units are defined in terms of SI units. I've once made a universal unit converter, so I kind of know these things. Shinobu 12:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Roger that. It's hard to imagine, but then again, this enables nice bets like "How long will it take for the Americans to get used to SI?" and the like. :-) Shinobu 20:35, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't it just make sense then to put US equpiment in US measurements with SI in brackets? Best to leave units in their countries' own units... i.e.. a 6 inch pipe/gun or whatever you want could be labled as 6 inches (15.24cm), it would also make more sense to a reader.. if we left it in SI it would look odd... Elementalos 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
A mention of Ricin I added to this article in the "Developments by the Western governments" section was removed on the basis that "Ricin is a biological weapon, not chemical... technically". This is incorrect, Ricin is listed under the Chemical Weapons Convention, Schedule 1A(8). Though Ricin seems also to be covered by the Biological Weapons Convention as a toxin. Would anyone object to the reinstatement of my mention of Ricin? Perhaps some discussion of the borderline chemicals between Chemical and Biological would be useful, but that is beyond my knowledge. Rwendland 17:28, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
Rwendland 11:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Opinion -
The chemical warfare sphere has traditionally included toxic chemical, incendairies and combat flame, and smoke. The biological warfare sphere has traditionally included biologicals (microorganisms), toxins, and bioregulators. There have been many debates on the position of toxins in the chemical biological spectrum. Not being living organisms with a capability to spread through a contagion, operationally they can be treated as chemical agents. However, production, storage, symptoms, and measures of potency puts toxins well into biological warfare. Contemporary opinion is to view toxins as transition agents between chemicals and biologicals. It would probably be better to note this, and then relegate an entry specific to biotoxin warfare, which could also include discussion of bioregulators/modifiers. That page should include discussion/links for Agents PG (staphliococcus enterotoxin B), XR (botulinum toxin A), TZ (Saxitoxin), and W (Ricin).
It would be appropriate to include a paragraph on incendiaries and combat flame with links to Napalm and Firestorms, and such. Furthermore, smoke as used in warfare needs mention. The use of herbicides (e.g., Agent ORANGE, or LNX), would be better suited for discussion in biological warfare, as these are plant growth regulators.
Prions would be considered a fringe biological warfare area of speculation - like extremophils and exobiologicals. That is, no one has attempted to militarize prions, and it is doubtful there is a "business case" to do such when you consider its extremely latent rate-of-action (months to years), high dosage requirements (comparable to the LCt50 of botulinum toxin A, Agent XR), and difficulty in production (mammalian nerve cells).
Reid Kirby1323S-11AU05
under "Chemical warfare technology" it says: "Germany, the first side to employ chemical warfare on the battlefield..."
the "Use of poison gas in World War I" article however states: "The French were the first to employ gas..."
maybe someone who knows, or at least can check someplace, could correct one of the articles.
I read in a biography of Fritz Haber that it was possible that the french used tear gas ahdn grenades, but there are no solid sources on it. 131.96.149.151 14:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I've found a source that says that Germans were the first to use poison gas in WW1. http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/cont_harbinger_3.html . I was watching the documentary and it appears the Germans did a bit of a test run in Poland first about 3 months before using it on the Western Front. Ka-ru 12:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
The second paragraph states:
However, the use in war of toxic products produced by living organisms (e.g., toxins such as botulinum toxin, ricin, or saxitoxin) is considered as chemical warfare under the provisions of the Chemical Weapons Convention.
But later in the article, listed as chemicals not technically considered chemical warfare agents, we read:
Viruses, bacteria, or other organisms, or their toxic products. (emphasis added) Their use is classified as biological warfare.
Thank you for pointing this out. In fact, toxic products of organisms are chemical warfare; it is the use of the organisms themselves which constitutes biological warfare. This has been fixed. – ClockworkSoul 03:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Does the use of poison arrows to hunt game belong in an article about warfare? No evidence is presented that the prehistoric arrows were ever used in combat.
I think it does belong, as it points out how early man was using chemical weaponry. The poisoned arrows of the Scythians should be mentioned. Axeman89 13:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the first comment that the use of a poison arrow to hunt an antelope doesn't seem to constitute "warfare." I think this portion of the article could be rephrased. 78.53.0.97 ( talk) 23:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What about a reference to chemical agent destruction or neutralization? Massive stockpiles of chemical agents have been destroyed.
I tried to find where I read this today, but so far with no luck. It referred to some treaties, and said that the chemical products of biological organisms, if used in warfare, are chemical weapons, not biological. This is the opposite of what is stated in this article. I believe the article is wrong. After all, if you could make, say, chlorine biologically, why would using that chlorine be considered a biological weapon?
I'm not quite sure about "Biotoxins". I'd be willing to believe that the use of toxins which can ONLY be produced by biological processes are considered biological weapons, but chemicals (which could be synthetically manufactured) produced biologically are chemical weapons. So, the statement made in the article may be correct, but misleading, at least the way I'm reading it.
I'm removing it for now for two reasons:
– ClockworkSoul 03:04, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm considering removing this section for lack of encyclopedic value. Does anybody have any objections? – ClockworkSoul 03:38, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
User Geni deleted over one dozen external links listing the West's build up of Saddam's chemical weapons. This appears on its face like a POV edit. I notice in the "futher reading section" there are two books about Arabs using chemical weapons, " Arab Chemical Warfare Against Jews – in 1944." "Tapes shed new light on bin Laden's network", but there is no mention of the west building up thier client states--such as Saddam. I just added the book the "Death Lobby", which confirms how the west created Saddam's weapons. These 2 dozen links which the user attemped to delete are about contemporary issues of chemical war, and if " Arab Chemical Warfare Against Jews – in 1944." and "Tapes shed new light on bin Laden's network" can be included in this article, then articles about the West creating Saddam's chemical weapons should be included too. Travb 16:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Clockwork for being a negotiator and taking the time to resolve this. Thanks Travb 23:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Today I temporarily removed the following section because it's not quite correct:
Biotoxins really present a grey area between biological and chemical warfare, but toxic products produced by living organisms, are not classified as biological weapons by the CWC (the go-to document for all things chemical): they are definitively classified as chemical because they don't contain any living biological material. Plus, they have no DNA, and cannot spead beyond their initial exposure like a biological agent. While it is true that they are exceedingly deadly, they're really not a "poor man's nuke", because they are not only much more expensive to produce and isolate than "standard" chemical weapons like sarin or VX, but they tend to be elaborate proteins, which are highly unstable when introduced to the atmosphere, or even when banged around a bit. However, biological pathogens themselves can be very much a "poor man's nuke", as they are almost ridulously cheap to produce, and can be very easy to deploy. – Clockwork Soul 17:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
ClockworkSoul
Actually, it is the difference between politicians and lawyers and those in the field. The lethality of a biological is usually more than for a chemical weapon. Yes, biologicals are considered separately by NBC defense specialists and medical personnel. NBC-MED link
For another POV: "Biological warfare is one leg of the triad of weapons of mass destruction (coupled with nuclear and chemical weapons). " (Terry Mayer, LTC at NON-PDF link
Further our article is mixing the terms. What is described as a biological is more like a 'vector'. A vector is a carrier. A mosquito carrying nile fever would be a vector. The actual virus is the pathogen. And while the article indicates that biologicals are less stable, that is only after deployment on the battle field. In storage they are much more stable than most chemicals. This term should be "persistance". Yes, most biologicals are less persistant. There are ways to work around that, but I will not discuss those. And usually the lack of persistance is desired.
For the purposes of international treaties, biologicals are chemicals. For the purposes of killing, biologicals are traditionally dealt with separately because of their peculiar issues.
I really think the view of biologicals should be removed from the Hollywood portrayals back in the 60's and 70's. A biological does not need to reproduce in order to be much more lethal and sometimes persistant than chemicals. http://dictionary.reference.com/ also gives rather industry standard definitions.
El guero Wayne
I should add the definitions of biologicals in treaty form: "Note: Biological Agents, defined in the treaty as microbial or other biological agents, are naturally occurring microorganisms (virus, bacteria, fungus) or toxins that can cause death or disease in a targeted population." from link,
&/or:
"An issue that long hindered progress was whether chemical and biological weapons should continue to be linked. . . ." and "The United States supported the British position and stressed the difference between the two kinds of weapons. . . ." and "the White House announced extension of the ban to cover toxins (substances falling between biologicals and chemicals in that they act like chemicals but are ordinarily produced by biological or microbic processes)." at link
This article is definitely too long; I propose to remove the history sections to a separate article, History of chemical warfare, and replace them with a short summary.-- ragesoss 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the newly added line:
I managed to find no small number of sites that refer to this, so I indeed believe it, but I haven't bene able to find anything truly "robust". Does anybody happen to know of a good reliable source, like a text book or an academic review, that mentions this incident in more detail? – Clockwork Soul 15:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I added the line: my source is Russian. Article prepared by Pavel Aptekar' of the Russian State Military Archive, "'Khimchistka' po-tambovski" ( _Rodina_, 1994, # 5, pp. 56-57) reprints about a dozen documents on the Red Army's campaign and use of poison gas. Dave S. 11 Feb 2006
I find it kind of annoying and inconsistent that this article does not have the WMD template (at right) at the top of the page (It's really obscure and seems out of place at the bottom, especially because this article is so long). Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Weapons have it at the top. I tried to add it, but couldn't figure out how to get it to mingle gracefully with the existing table for Chemical Warfare. Could someone with more technical knowledge please move it to the top of this page? Torgo 01:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, pardon me. The Nuclear page also has this template near the bottom. Well, in that case, maybe it's alright. It still irks me a little bit. Torgo 01:45, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I removed this article's nomination on WP:GA/N, as it's already a featured article. Worldtraveller 00:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
The three articles on phosgene derivates differ a little one has the big This article forms part of the series Chemical warfare (at right) diphosgene, which is still used as lab chemical. The phosgene has no This article forms part of the series Chemical warfare (at right) although it was segnificatly more important and has only little use in lab anymore (industry still uses it in large quanteties). The triphosgene has nothing at all!
There should be mention somewhere of Russian VX. It has a different chemical structure than the VX produced in the US. Pjanini1 15:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
In the last part of this passage:
The first successful use of chemical agents by terrorists against a general civilian population was on March 20, 1995. Aum Shinrikyo, an apocalyptic group based in Japan that believed it necessary to destroy the planet, released sarin into the Tokyo subway system killing 12 and injuring over 5,000. The group had attempted biological and chemical attacks on at least 10 prior occasions, but managed to affect only cult members. The group did manage to successfully release sarin outside an apartment building in Matsumoto in June 1994; this use was directed at a few specific individuals living in the building and was not an attack on the general population.
It claims that it was not an attack on the general population, should this be re-worded as it killed seven people and from what I've heard, the general population may have been secondary targets? raptor 08:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
What does this text from the article mean? "and again against sewer lines of communication" Is it a typo? Is it a smelly kind of espionage? - DLeonard 11:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologi(s/z)e in advance, if this is not the right place to raise this issue. Over time, I see more and more articles being either "americanized" or "britishised", e.g theater/theatre, color/colour, ~ise/~ize and the like. I wonder if there's any convention in the WIKI project prescribing the orthography? If not, we should not alter whatever spelling is used, if the word under consideration is spelled in a way that is considered correct in a country where English is an official language. Lost Boy 05:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Are phosphorus bombs considered chemical weapons by wikipedia? Because if so, Israel has admitted to their use today. However, Israel attests that they are incendiary bombs, and therefore not chemical weapons... which obviously they would regardless.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/777549.html (Israeli newspaper)
This site is plagiarized directly from http://en.allexperts.com/e/c/ch/chemical_warfare.htm. It's obvious because the first paragraph starts mid-sentence. I don't know enough to replace it with original text, so if someone could do that, 'twould be good. - Im.a.lumberjack 00:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Iraq's Chemical Warfare has been generated as new page.--14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Ruth Lewin Sime, in her autobiography of Lise Meitner, describes the first use of poison gas in WWI as in Galacia, as a test for the Western Front (France). Meitner was a close associate of Otto Hahn, a German scientist who worked on the project. I've talked to some history majors about this and they've claimed that a lot of what happened regarding Russia and the Eastern Front has been lost down an historic memory hole. -- Ryan Wise 16:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC) I added a paragraph to reflect in (ineffictive) use of various agents prior the 1st Ypres by both French and German forces. This includes the use of T-shells against the Russions in Oct 1914. – |Beringar —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC).
in 1997, a french newspaper Le Nouvel Observateur revealed france had a secret chemical warfare facility in the sahara called B2-Namous. it was used from 1962 to 1978. the Evian agreements mentioned France had to leave the atomic facilities CSEM & CEMO (+ CIEES for rockets & missiles) by july 1967 (five years after the end of the french-algerian war) in the sahara desert, and it was done, but actually another facility was secretly used until 1978! here's an interview about Pierre Messmer French Defence Minister from 1960 to 1969 [3] more infos are welcome for the article (Developments by the Western governments). Shame On You 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
"After World War I, the United States and many of the European powers attempted to take
advantage of the opportunities that the war created by attempting to establish and hold colonies."
Can you name any new colonies, particularly of the U.S.? I can't. Imperialism started going out of fashion in the West post-WWI, though the process was admittedly quite slow. Since the statement contributes little to the discussion of chemical weapons, one cannot help but suspect a non-NPOV.
you shut up when your talking to me!! adam kohn posted this
I would like to ask, if an additional note in "Chemistry" section of respective (major, well-known, significant) CW agents regarding the common/possible manufacture, or rather synthesis, could/should be added. I mean nothing too detailed, or of "how-to" fashion, but I think, that it would be, in general terms, good to have e.g. a note, possibly a reaction scheme, that illustrates that sulfur mustard was usually made out of sulfur chloride and ethene, or thiodiglycol and a nucleophile chlorination agent. This can make, if given in a comprehensive and short way, more easy to understand, why some particular chemicals (I mean the precursors) are controlled, though not beeing CW agents itself... I could contribute this way on some agents, but I rather ask first here, if it would be OK, I know, that this subject may be problematic for some people... Please tell me what do you think about it. Thank you.-- 84.163.98.50 19:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Iran never used chemical weapons in the Iran Iraq War. The US and Iraqi accusations were made in order to justify Iraq's use of western supplied chemical's and weapons against Iran. The US has brought up no evidence supporting this accusation, neither has Iraq, and independent research has never found an instance where Iran used such weapons. Thus I removed the part about US accusations against Iran. Countries make false accusations about other countries all the time, especially in propaganda warfare, this doesnt mean that POV should or propaganda should be included in an encyclopaedia. Azerbaijani 03:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Just found this BBC article, Using drugs as weapons 'unsafe', which is about concerns of the British Medical Association regarding ongoing research programs to extend chemical agents. Worth mentioning? — Alde Baer 20:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
this looks like a good pic for this
SOCIOPOLITICAL CLIMATE COLUMBO: CHEMICAL EMBARRASMENT:… Babylonian chauvinism can be blamed instead, but then only university students know this can be at all utility; and wonder who are they saving that they look at and deny at the same time afterwards Babylonian fortune: in that case it is no-one and everyone aelektra,; and yet in the distance someone warned them, that something like ‘a professional spike’ is likely| after a time it realises that mega-coalition is the nth landlord to take responsibility for some kind of “spiky centaur”, & to place this in such a way within a typical sociality; ; however then the spiky centaur gets confused, and where it cannot blame any of the popular faculties anymore, it blames the nexus; ; the blamed nexus centurian then realises this type of ecogenic-conspiracy and martyrs itself with the time machine; ; after a while it catches itself on immortal government of some kind, however this then relates all the way back… —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.109.58 ( talk) 15:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I read an unsourced article awhile back that mentioned a Soviet-designed airborne chemical weapon that caused permanent blindness with minimal other effects. Sounded like Red Scare bullshit, but I thought I'd inquire. Does anything similar actually exist? 209.247.5.49 07:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Mesopotamia is mentioned - but no comment about Churchill urging the use of chemical weapons on the civilian population there? http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,939608,00.html Churchill was particularly keen on chemical weapons, suggesting they be used "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment". He dismissed objections as "unreasonable". "I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes _ [to] spread a lively terror. ( 82.22.95.0 11:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC))
An assertion against the Grand Mufti is given prominence (& supported only by a link to a non-neutral website), about a supposedly intended attack that never happened ... and this was 60 years ago. In the interests of balance perhaps it could be mentioned that Israel is accused of testing chemical weapons in Gaza last year. This from a source that should be regarded as neutral by most - http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1924524,00.html ( 82.22.95.0 12:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC))
The picture of a postcard showing a "gassing" of german troops in WWI apparently doesn't show a gas, but a flamethrower attack. The noun gas seems to refer to gasoline. Since a flamethrower is not a chemical weapon in the sense of this article, you should consider removing the picture. -- Mysticmasterofdisaster 16:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, chemical weapons were banned by international law throughout the entirety of the Cold War, correct? Then what was the basis under which the U.S. and Soviet Union continued to develop these and under what sort of circumstances were they intended to be used? I think this is something that isn't touched upon in this article, which only really says that the U.S. produced chemical agents only to destroy them later on Masterblooregard ( talk) 21:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |