Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore?

Re:Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore? by jcranmer on Tuesday March 24, 2020 @09:14AM (#22674559)

Except terrorizing a population into surrendering hasn't proven to be an effective tactic in history. I'm struggling to think of a single case where it actually happened.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore? by DaiPlusPlus on Tuesday March 24, 2020 @09:42AM (#22674703)

While terrorism (going by the classical definition) hasn’t had had any (or many?) victories of that sort - let’s not pretend that acts of terrorism don’t achieve political goals - and if nothing else they make the people in charge sit-up and take notice.

There’s only one example I can comfortably talk about: I don’t believe Devolution and the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland would have come about if it weren’t for the shadow of the IRA looming over Westminster.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore? by redis_mlc on Tuesday March 24, 2020 @12:21PM (#22675905)

My understanding is that US envoys and a moderator was the main reason for the ceasefire.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore? by clacke2 on Tuesday March 24, 2020 @08:31PM (#22680679)

Would they have even been there if not for the terrorism?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Why Don’t We Use Chemical Weapons Anymore? by eecc on Saturday March 28, 2020 @03:17AM (#22709742)

Uhm, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

[ Parent | on HN ]