Talk:Chemical warfare/Archive 1

Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical weapons were usually considered morally equivalent and referred to collectively by the phrase "NBC weapons", until this phrase was replaced by weapons of mass destruction, due to confusion about the line between chemical and biological weapons (e.g. prions which are not organisms but simple single-molecule proteins, and could thereby be considered either chemical or biological), concerns about genetic manipulation of biological entities, or nanotechnological methods to generate new molecules with lifelike characteristics, or to exude dangerous chemicals, and the danger of weapons using artificial intelligence and robotics, all of which could conceivably get beyond human control.

NBC weapons were never considered morally equivalent, and the use of WMD was not due to the division between bio and chem weapons.

• Yes, anon. They do. [[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 03:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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.

• I'm okay with the cut; the reasoning seems perfectly good. ClockworkTroll 04:11, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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.

There has also been some debate wheter they actually used it to kill humans Report

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?

in the american gas chambers Cyanide is given into an acid. This releases HCN immediately. Zyklon B is designed to release HCN over a longer period of time. The intended use is against insects.

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)

• In my experience conflict involes both sides fighting. With the exceoption of a few localised incidents the Jews were unable to fight back.Geni 16:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I thought you might say that, and it's an understandable point. My thought is, however, is that a "state of war" exists between two parties where there is adequate antagonism between them such that members of either side can expect the other side to attack them at any time. It seems to me that, although the Jews were subjugated, they would have attacked the Nazis whenever they could, and usually did on the rare occasions that they were presented with the opportunity. So, therefore, it seems to me that subjugating an entire group and/or committing acts of genocide against them is in itself an act of war. ClockworkTroll 16:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

However when open conflict was entered into (Warsaw ghetto uprising is the main one I'm thinking of) Zyklon B was not used.Geni 17:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really do see your logic, but I'm not 100% sold, so want to explore all of our logical avenues here: by the above definition, both parties were in a state of war whether or not they were in active fighting. I think that we can agree that to say that they were in a state of peace when not actively killing one another is absurd. Therefore, how is using HCN to efficiently kill hundreds of people, with whom you are in a state of war, not use of a chemical weapon? ClockworkTroll 18:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Becuase they were not in a state of war. Conflitcs were isolated and there is no real evidence of the jew, gays or romany fighting as a common group so there was no state of war between these groups and the germans. There were localised conflicts but Zyklon B (and other chemical weapons) were not used. Zyklon B was only used on those who were not fighting.Geni 18:44, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe we would do best to first agree on the meaning of a "state of war". I favor the propsed by Thomas Hobbes: that a state of war is one in which you can expect that a party will attack you given the opportunity. To say that populations are only at war when actively engaged in fighting implies that they are at peace when not in the act of literally killing each another, and I still think we can agree that this is absurd, right? Even if those subjugated by the Nazis could not fight, is there any disagreement that they would have if they could have (I cite the Warsaw ghetto uprising as an example)? By extension, this implies that war cannot be truly one-sided: everybody involved is in a state of war, even if there is a huge imbalance of power. That's what I mean by a "state of war". What do you think? ClockworkTroll 19:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem with this defintion is that the Warsaw ghetto uprising didn't happen until quite late. The jews didn't attacks when given the opportunity.Geni 19:22, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The timeline isn't a problem, because it did happen. It may not have been until late, but it did happen. An informed person living near the beginning of those times would have understood the feelings of the Jews, and therefore would have had every reason to expect that such uprisings could have happened at any point. (The point I'm working on here is desire, not what was practical.) Do you think I'm wrong to say that? ClockworkTroll 19:37, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But that doesn't fit your defintion. It states that group A will try and attack group B when given the opertunity. It doesn't say anything about desire. Geni 19:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course it does. If group A desires to attack group B, it will - given the opportunity; thats that's the basis of my conclusion. To get back on track, do you accept that as a definition of the state of war? If not, why not, and do you have another proposal? ClockworkTroll 20:20, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But the jews didn't attack when they could. We know that there was a group that desired to attack the british in india. They didn't but you would still claim that was a war.Geni 20:30, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If the Indians were representative of the population as a whole, I would say that they were in a state of war. After all, how would you feel if you were occupied and dominated by people form another nation? I think that you may still be thinking in terms of battlefields and gunfire, and a state of war is not always like that. How can you say the Jews could have attacked? Peoples so deeply subjugated as the Jews at the time still had alot to lose if they held an uprising, and with such a huge power difference between them and the Germans, they probably didn't think an uprising would have much effect (and they would have thought so correctly). I think that it can be said without error that the majority of the Jews (and others so subjugated) wanted nothing more than to kill as many Nazis as possible, and would have if they thought they could do it and get away with it. If that's not war, then what is? Please tell me: what do you think the state of war is? ClockworkTroll 20:52, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

War is when there are two (or more) sides trying to use force to atchive something that the other does not want to happen. Your defintion also fails to take into account limited conflicts such as the falklands war where the British turned down a number of chances to attack the argentians.Geni 22:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not at all - you're being too literal. I never said that one party will always attack the other; I said that a state of war exists when a party can reasonably expect to be attacked. From the point of view of the Argentinans, they could have fully expected the British to attack, and that the British sometimes chose not to attack is not relevant. I'm not sure I made myself entirely clear: when I speak of a "state of war", I do not necessarily mean at war in the military sense. To clarify, Israeli Jews and Palestinians are in a "state of war", but are not officially "at war"; the same goes with inner city gang members in the United States. By your definition, I'm at war with my government because they make me pay taxes even though I don't want to, and children at war with their parents when they don't want to go to school. I'm not sure that makes much sense. ClockworkTroll 22:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are you using force to avoid paying taxes? Sides means more than one person. In the flaklands it is clear from the Argentinan tactics that they did not expect the british to attack their mainland.Geni 23:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The threat of force is implied by my government if I do not pay, yes. It seems to me that we have boiled this debate down to a single question: does subjugation by force constitute a state of war? I say it does, and you disagree. Am I correct in saying that? ClockworkTroll 23:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pretty muchGeni 00:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me that an argument for separating use of chemical weapons where a state of war is not apparent or unclear could be made. But the article does to some extent do that. Geni, how would you propose to see it done? A separate referenced article? What would the title be? - Trick 20:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I changed a section title from ..."non-combat chemical warfare events" which I wrote and was a bit strange to "non-combat chemical weapon usage". It seems to me that non-combat does describe well the concentration camps usage and the Aum Shinrikyo attack. Perhaps the World War II section can link to this section in regards to the concentration camps and, if enough non-combat uses of chemical weapons are listed, this section might become a separate article. But I favor keeping these events here. Chemical Weapons gets redirected here and someone looking for Zyklon or Sarin uses including non-combat uses might very well search for that. - Trick 20:39, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

pursuant to this, please see this Google search - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=define%3Achemical+weapons&btnG=Search - Trick 20:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't find any referance to which gas was used. Anyone know?Geni 08:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I found several historical references about this (which I had no idea about before you posted it). One of the best is here. Sadly, the exact agents used aren't mentioned. I would assume that it was the WW-I staples of mustard, lewisite, and chlorine, but I won't put that in an article without verification. – [[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 09:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Found out why. Despite churchills enthusam gas was never used or at least no records of it's use exist. Geni
• Yikes - you're right. Big thank you for finding that: I already already entered the exact opposite into the text. – [[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 02:16, 30 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:

1. The Geneva Protocol reads Whereas the prohibition of such use has been declared in Treaties to which the majority of Powers of the world are Parties.... This seems outwardly mention only the use of CW's (not their stockpiling, of course), but how is it interpreted to mean that CW's and BW's may be used in retaliation? Is this being read as an extension of the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907?
2. Why not create a username? Your input would be very appreciated, and the more eyeballs cleaning up my errors the better.

[[User:ClockworkSoul|User:ClockworkSoul/sig]] 21:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Today I removed this section:

After the war, most of the unused German chemical warfare agents were dropped into the Baltic Sea. Over time, the shell casings corrode and mustard gas is released as a wax-like solid that can be mistaken for amber when it washes onto shore. The wax-like mustard gas is still toxic intense enough to cause severe intoxications.

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.

ClockworkSoul 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=222stone 23 Dec 2004

What I get from that article is that the danger is disputed and nothing about it washing ashore. Rmhermen 19:06, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

OK but here are some more links:

http://dc2.uni-bielefeld.de/dc2/kampfst/lost.htmhttp://www.heute.t-online.de/ZDFheute/artikel/7/0,1367,POL-0-2025959,00.htmlhttp://www.tagesthemen.de/aktuell/meldungen/0,1185,OID1119116_TYP6_THE1119246_NAV1307088~1277980~1119246_REF12216,00.htmlhttp://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-butyldimethylsilylationJOURNAL OF CHROMATOGRAPHY A 1061 (2): 235-241 DEC 24 2004 131.96.149.151 14:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Viscous mustardWhat 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)

NO! White phosphorous is stored under water in the lab! [1] It does not react with water, and at temperatures as low as the baltic sea it is stable for years. Both things can be found White phosphorous and lost. Have read enough about incidents with both substances. Blind fisherman, who catche lost instead of fish and burning tuorists which thought to have found amber and put it into a pocket in their trousers and ended up with burning trousers .--Stone (talk) 07:22, 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

• Hello, Paul. Operation Tailwind was indeed nonexistant, but there is some evidence supporting allegations that the incapacitating agent BZ (3-quinuclidinyl_benzilate) was used experimentally by the US in the Vietnam confict (one source is Acid Dreams: The CIA, LSD and the Sixties Rebellion by Martin A. Lee and Bruce Shlain - ISBN 0802130623; another is SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) [more info here]). These allegations even inspired the 1990 fictional film Jacob's Ladder. As far as I know, no other accusations regarding CW's in Vietnam have been made (at least none that have any kind of evidence). Hope this help. – ClockworkSoul 20:20, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Thanks Clockwork. I do not believe these alligations, but they ought to be mentioned. P in S
• You're very welcome. They are already briefly mentioned, though (but I think I'll add the bit about the film to it now). Check the section "Developments by the Western governments uring the Cold War". – ClockworkSoul 16:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why are we not discussing the use of Agent Orange? --Tothebarricades.tk 01:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I've added a paragraph on its use in Vietnam. Although the article says at the beginning that it's about use of chemicals to kill or incapacitate the enemy, and this was not intended for those purposes, I think it's somewhat relevant and if we don't want to include it, the lead section should probably say something about defoliants not being covered.-gadfium 02:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But defoliants are meant to incapacitate the enemy, by starving them. That said, I suppose water is a chemical weapon too. The enemy is incapacitated by being knocked over by jets of it. --ToobMug 21:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite true: by definition a chemical weapon exerts is effects by direct chemical action on its victim. Take a look at the discussion at Talk:Chemical warfare#Napalm and Agent Orange in Vietnam. – ClockworkSoul 21:42, 10 October 2006 (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?

No, this is correct. High pressure, more vapor. Rmhermen 16:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

"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.

Yes, Agent Orange is not a dioxin. The exposure danger of dioxin is more a matter of debate. Rmhermen 16:08, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

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.

problem only appears when text size is set to "larger" hmmmmGeni 08:20, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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? – ClockworkSoul 15:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following text for the above reason:

Napalm, although not a "chemical agent," but simply a mixture of gasoline and a thickening agent to allow it to stick to its target, was used in World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. Napalm was used in flame-throwers and bombs. It was notably used to clear Japanese "spider-holes" and for the firebombing of cities. Napalm was later dropped on villages [2], and on wide swaths of land in attempts to root out Vietnamese insurgents. It was not until the altered political sensibilities of the 1960s that the use of napalm attracted protests.

Napalm was originally discoverd by Louis Feiser and Dow Chemical in 1943 in a contest set up by the United States Army, which sought better tailored chemical weapons agents. Napalm stuck to the skin and caused severe burns, even to those underwater.

[[:Image:TrangBang.jpg|left|120px|thumb|Kim Phuc at Trang Bang (Nick Ut / ©Associated Press)]]

From 1961 to 1970, the U.S. military used the herbicide and defoliant Agent Orange widely as part of the Vietnam War. While the military purpose was to remove the leaves of trees to prevent guerrilla fighters of the National Liberation Front from hiding, Agent Orange has since been blamed for causing health disorders and birth defects in both the Vietnamese population and U.S. war veterans. It has also been found to have carcinogenic properties.

– ClockworkSoul 15:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

Neither of these are chemical weapons. Napalm is a conventional weapon and Agent Orange isn't a weapon but a defoliant. Napalm was promoted as a crab grass killer after World War II. Rmhermen 00:43, Mar 9, 2005 (UTC)

• Not every chemical designed for warfare is a "chemical weapon" per se. Explosives are chemicals, but they aren't chemical weapons because their action is concussive, not chemical. Gunpowder is a chemical, but it is not a chemical weapon bacuse it's the bullets that kill you. Incendiaries like napalm are chemicals, but they kill by fire and not by direct chemical action. Chemical weapons are designed to act directly on the human body: nerve agents kill by directly inhibiting acetylcholinesterase; hydrogen cyanide kills by directly inhibiting cellular metabolism; mustard gas wounds or kills by reacting directly with the skin. – ClockworkSoul 00:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

• That would be much appreciated! The more informed brains we get in here, the better! – ClockworkSoul 00:40, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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)

• Way ahead of you, there. Already reverted fo rthe same reason. – ClockworkSoul 02:20, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Internet-sites can be a bit tough to navigate when the batteries of your mouse are dead. Thanks for performing the necessary actions! Shinobu 02:28, 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)

• Can you point to a policy somewhere on Wikipedia that says we use only SI units? I searched, but was unable to find one. – ClockworkSoul 21:53, 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... However, the U.S. and parts of Europe still prefer English measurements (listing two units is the standard in the States, where much of the population is still too stubborn to learn SI units. ;) ) We really should keep them both. As for the abbreviations, we should probably adhere to the style guide: spelling all the measurement out. – ClockworkSoul 01:22, 17 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)

• I guess it's a good thing that we're not living in Roman times, eh? ;) As you pointed out, most nations have been able to integrate SI thoroughly enough that the population understands them at least as well as their traditional units (as you say, they have the same status). As a U.S. resident, however, I can tell you for a fact that SI units are not used, or even understood, by the vast majority of people here. Our street signs are exclusively in miles, our cars register speed in mph, we weigh ourselves in pounds, and our drugs are dispensed in fluid ounces. Therefore, we can comfortably say that there are two major units of measurement remaining in the world: SI and U.S. customary units (Imperial). I'm not saying that it's right or wrong (as a scientist I'm very comfortable SI units, and would prefer to integrate with the rest of the world), but it's the state of things – for better or worse. To eliminate Imperial/U.S. customary units would be to disenfranchise the millions of people that rely on it. – ClockworkSoul 15:44, 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)

No. There's no other internationally agreed upon system of units than the SI-system. If some don't follow suit, so be it; but we shouldn't support the use od outdated unit systems. BTW, if I remember correctly, the USA was one of the first - if not the first- nation to officialy go metric, I think, twards the end of the 19th century. Lost Boy 07:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

For info, the US measurement system is not the same as "Imperial" (the traditional UK system). There are some differences in the fluid measures I believe. Itsmejudith 08:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

But if the US measures their equipment in INCHES, shouldn't it be written in inches? with the international units in brackets for clarification of international readers? would be the most neutral appraoch I think... 19:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elementalos (talk • contribs)

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 theChemical 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)

• I've been reading, and it seems that you're right, and I've been mistaken. I would have no problem with a mention of ricin, and I apologize for wrongly removing it. This suggests a whole new avenue of exploration for this article: biological toxins fall into a legal grey area, as far as treaties go, but at the end of the day they're treated as chemical weapons. – ClockworkSoul 03:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• Indepedently user 213.10.161.85 has added something on toxic products produced by living organisms in the Introduction, which seems to nicely highlight this issue. Perhaps more grey area chemicals are Prions, which get a brief mention in Biological agent. –

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

I do not agree that flame-producers and smoke are considered chemical warfare. For instance, they are not regulated by the Chemical Warfare Convention or similar treaties. Rmhermen 18:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

There is an important historical heritage that would be missing if the discussion of chemical warfare was limited to the scope of the CWC and other prohibition efforts. The Royal Engineer's Special Brigade was responsible for employing smoke and flame in the First World War as well as Gas, just as the AEF refered to its gas troops as 30th Engineers, Gas Smoke & Flame. Even today, chemical soldiers are responsible for coordinating smoke and flame operations. --Reid Kirby 20:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Chemical weapons however has a clear modern usage that I don't think is aided by extensive discussion of those other weapons. However, perhaps a historical note is indicated. Rmhermen 21:16, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

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 agree, though I don't think it really "matters" exactly who used it first, it looks pretty dumb to have an encyclopedia article that directly contradicts itself. If there is disagreement, people should give dates and references.

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.

• Actually, there was a conflict. The article originally stated that biotoxins were biological warfare, but when the error was found, the article was only half corrected. You are correct in stating them employing biotoxins in warfare is chemical warfare, and the remainder od the article has been corrected to reflect that. – ClockworkSoul 03:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm removing it for now for two reasons:

1. It's terribly ugly and does unpretty things to the formatting.
2. The WMD/chemical template (placed lower down the page, see #1) was designed to replace it.

– 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)

• Okay then - off they go! – ClockworkSoul 18:14, 22 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)

• I have to agree with Geni on this one: this is an article on chemical warfare in general, so it's not proper to have 80% of the external links be about how the US gave WMDs to Iraq. Perhaps Iraq and weapons of mass destruction would be more appropriate? – ClockworkSoul 20:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
• Okay, I looked closedly at the links. Many were political judgements of who gave WMDs to Iraq. I removed most of these because only a couple are needed to make the point. A number of them were about biological weapons, which are not relevant. All said, I left four of the new links, and the book reference. Others may see fit to remove others due to redundancy. – ClockworkSoul 21:02, 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:

However, toxic products, toxins, produced by living organisms (e.g., toxins such as botulinum toxin, ricin, or saxitoxin) are usually defined as biological agents. The definition of toxins as biological agents rather than chemical agents is largely because of their lethality. Most biological agents are deadlier than chemical agents, hence the term "poor man's nuke".

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. – ClockworkSoul 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

• El Guero: I see your point: the Biological Weapons Convention cleanly links pathogens and toxins. As a molecular biologist, that makes absolutely no sense to me, but such is life. If you see some points that we need to clarify or correct in the article, please feel free to do so: you have my full support; a new set of eyeballs would be very helpful. We may want to mention the debate regarding the biological/chemical status of toxins (the Chemical Weapons Convention, for example, also mentions saxitoxin and ricin as Schedule 1 substances, so there is at least some overlap). – ClockworkSoul 19:22, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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:

The Soviet Union also employed poison gas on its own people during the interwar period. Soviet commander Mikhail Tukhachevsky used chemical weapons in the 1921 suppression of a massive peasant uprising around Tambov.

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? – ClockworkSoul 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

Weapons of mass destruction
By type
Biological Chemical Nuclear Radiological
By country
Albania Algeria Argentina Australia Brazil Bulgaria Canada China Egypt France Germany India Iran Iraq Israel Italy Japan Libya Mexico Myanmar Netherlands North Korea Pakistan Philippines Poland Rhodesia Romania Russia (Soviet Union) Saudi Arabia South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Ukraine United Kingdom United States
Proliferation
Chemical Nuclear Missiles
Treaties
List of treaties (treaty parties)
Category
v t e

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 seriesChemical warfare (at right) diphosgene, which is still used as lab chemical. The phosgene has no This article forms part of the seriesChemical 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)

Is that the one known as "V-gas"? raptor 07:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

In general, the first letter (G, H, V) refers to a class of chemical agents. While, AFAIK, VX was the only persistent nerve agent weaponized by the US, the Russian equivalent were the Novichok agents. Howard C. Berkowitz (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Novichok and "Russian" VX (which really is not VX) are two totally different chemicals. "G" refers to "G"erman, "H" to "H"un stuff. Other persistent agents weaponized were thickended G-as well as H-agents, thus carrying the risks (or benefits) of gas and liquid contamination for an extended period of time. Greetings, Lost Boy (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2008 (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)

See Warsaw Uprising where the Nazis had a lot of trouble with this. Rmhermen 01:24, 29 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)

• There is. In brief, if most of the article uses one particular flavor/flavour of English, the entire article should. The guideline is described in the Manual of Style section on National varieties of English. Also, one of the great unwritten rules of Wikipedia (one of many, I've found) is that it is considered to be in very bad form to change an article that is written in one flavor of English into another flavour without a very good reason supported by the style conventions. Hope that helps, and if you have any other questions, feel free to ask. :) – ClockworkSoul 17:02, 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)

White phosphorus is a "conventional weapon" according to the treaties. Rmhermen 06:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It is arguable if it is used other than for the normal use "to produce smoke, to camouflage movement", see White_phosphorus#Arms_control_status. But I don't think Israel or U.S. has signed up to Protocol III of Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, so they are probably legally in the clear. Rwendland 16:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

• Actually, that site copies this one. Take a look at the bottom of the page: This is the "GNU Free Documentation License" reference article from the English Wikipedia. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer. – ClockworkSoul 03:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Iraq's Chemical Warfare has been generated as new page.--14:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• This is still a problem. Can someone look at it. Capitalistroadster 04:26, 12 March 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)

here's another video about B2 Namous [4] Shame On You 21:21, 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

Guys, keep polite and sign your posts! Lost Boy 06:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

There is some merit to that, especially for the nerve agents – too many people do not realize the kind of plumbing needed to contain the fluorination steps, yet have people manufacturing organophosphofluorides in their basements. As far as mustards, it's much easier to control thiodiglycol than the precursors for the Levinstein reaction. I see too many protests about the terrors of allowing Saddam to buy isopropanol, when I would be much more concerned about the production equipment.

This is even more true for biological weapons; getting the cultures is the simplest part. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:41, 22 October 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? —AldeBaer 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)

As far as a chemical weapon with those properties, I don't know of one, but there definitely were laser weapons intended to cause blindness. See Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:36, 22 October 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.htmlChurchill 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))

Even if true, that article doesn't describe a chemical weapon. Xihr 17:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been alleged by plenty of sources so i think that should be enough to balance the article a little. The other problem with that passage is that a) that event is not part of the European Theatre of World War II as is applied and in other articles it is represented as an opinion rather than fact as it is not backed up by reliable sources and the second point is not warfare. --neonwhite user page talk 23:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If that is your position, then the solution is adding {{Fact}} tags to the suspicious claims, not "balancing" them with even more suspicious claims. Xihr (talk) 00:16, 8 April 2008 (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)

I believe you are correct and have removed it. Rmhermen 16:34, 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)