"Chemical Waepons not a factor in escalation?" Topic

Having seen a number of threads on possible Cold War turning Hot scenarios in western Europe I'm always a bit confused when people talk about how the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be seen as an escalation factor yet the use of chemical weapons appears not to be. I can recognize how the use of nuclear weapons would be viewed as an escalation of hostilities but why aren't the use of chemical weapons seen in the same light? By chemical weapons I am talking here about more than the WWI or early WWII agents like Mustard gas and phosgene. I am also talking about persistent agents like Sarin and Soman or VX. Could someone please elaborate?

I always thought the US policy was 'You slime us, we nuke you'. Sounds like an escalating factor to me.

Jake

The use of chemical weapons on soldiers is, IMO, no better or worse than killing them with bits of flying metal. Chemical weapons tend not to be particularly effective against troops properly trained and equipped. Without the fear factor there is less disgust factor.

Chemical weapons are very effective when used against civilians. That would be considered escalation.

Chemical weapons that kill (toxins, nerve agents whatever) seem to be regarded as almost less disgusting than weapons that don't kill cleanly. I think that what you have designated as "more" are in many ways regarded as less offensive.

I would not consider chemical weapons to be worse than cluster bombs, fuel-air explosives or any of the other rather revolting ways humans have found of killing each other.Personal opinion, and YMMV, but I've never seen why chemical weapons are linked to biological ones in any way shape or form.

I am pretty sure that in the Soviet arsenal chemical weapons were considered as a fairly standard part of their conventional doctrine, I seem to remember a few sober moments in BAOR when pretty well all GSFG doctrine would involve the use of non persistant agents ahead of their own troops,

Tally Ho!

I also seem to recall that one of the Warsaw pact plans included using chemical weapons on the dependants of the US troops!
William

US doctrine was to respond to WP chemical attacks in kind. Use of nukes or bio weapons would trigger a nuclear response. Of course, if the initial chemical attacks helped the other guys achieve their operational objectives, we were going nuclear anyway.

Battlefield Chemical weapons are a standard threat, hence the use of NBC suits and sealed vehicles.

Of course the British threat from ww2 still stood, you gas our cities, we wipe out your foodstocks (anthrax variants, even tested on a scottish island.).

The big powers have lived in a balance of terror for 60 years. It is becoming much more of an issue as smaller ones are preparing them as battlefield multipliers.

The use of chemical weapons on soldiers is, IMO, no better or worse than killing them with bits of flying metal. Chemical weapons tend not to be particularly effective against troops properly trained and equipped. Without the fear factor there is less disgust factor.
>>
It is worse actually. Ever try doing your job in complete protective gear? Its very hot,depending on the weather,and very cumbersome. Hard to run,operate your weapon,and eat!
And well trained or not,there will be a lot of casualties,both physical and mental.

Chemical weapons are nasty.
And yes,I do believe our doctrine at some point was if mass chemicals were used against NATO, the nukes would start flying.

Bob C.

For a while, I believe the US policy was gas = bugs = nukes, so receiving any one of them would trigger a nuclear response. That is no longer the policy.

I think Mr. Clancy had the right idea (Red Storm Rising): *if* you're going to use chemicals, use highly persistent ones on the pre-staged vehicle depots at the start of the conflict, preventing the use of those vehicles until they've been decontaminated. Otherwise, it's not worth doing.

I agree with 95thRegt, Chemical weapons are nasty with a capital NAST.

In the US we lump them into one group, NBC – Nuclear Biological Chemical – as attacks worthy of escalation.

Probably because they all threaten civilians disproportionately (they can't protect themselves like the military does) but also because they make the military job more difficult. The military establishment doesn't like that so they make clear that such acts will be escalated against.

Chemical weapons are nasty.

Yes, they are. But then so are lots of weapons.

The issue is not whether chemical weapons work, but if they are more effective than the alternatives, in a wider sense. They have to developed, transported, stored, and decontaminated afterwards. It's a lot of time and money and effort to send against troops well protected.

Could the Soviets have used them on a battlefield to usefully halt NATO without gassing large numbers of civilians? And once they started gassing civilians, they might as well have been throwing nukes.

"Could the Soviets have used them on a battlefield to usefully halt NATO without gassing large numbers of civilians? And once they started gassing civilians, they might as well have been throwing nukes".

Not to halt NATO! To prevent reinforcements, in support of river crossings etc. As for the civilians I don't think they were realy bothered, more expecting a Westward flow of refugees to hinder NATO troops,

Tally Ho!

This is some of the info I was looking for. Please keep it coming. In my mind, from the discussions I had been reading here I always assumed form my reading that any use of Chem/Bio agents by the Warsaw Pact against NATO would not be "limited" to small, specific targets like weapons facilities, vehicle depots or command bunkers but would be used like a giant lawn mower ahead of their invasion hitting a pathway in front of them and any one in the way be damned.

This kind of ran counter to my understanding of tactical nuclear doctrine, where basically the first use of a tactical or battlefield nuke would be viewed as a "major escalation". If that were the case, why not the mass use of chemical weapons? That would cause just as many, if not more casualties (particularly among local civilians). Those casualties in turn would motivate NATO leaders to strongly consider the use of a "response in kind" or an escalation to nuclear weapons. This can also be seen as a vice-versa situation with NATO being the aggressor as well.

Again thanks for the comments so far. Please kkep them coming.

As far as we were aware, the use of chemical or biological weapons by the Soviets would result in an instant escalation to nuclear weapons by us. From de-classified information in recent years we know that John Major made that quite clear to Saddam Hussein during GW1 – that the UK would use its independent nuclear forces on Iraq the instant that chemical or biological weapons were used by Saddam on any country.

One of the uses of chemical weapons was also 'filling in the gaps' between tactical nuclear strikes, so by that time you've gone nuclear already.

Depending on the time period, NATO would have been chucking nukes before the Sovs anyway, 'no first use' went out of the window decades ago.

When I was in the military it was just assumed we would be hit by chemical weapons. Not sure what the civilian government would do, but we ensured we were trained for that contingency.

Don't forget those juicy airfields waiting to be gassed. Against a mobile target I can't see gas being very effective but an airfield is stationary. When we did gas drills the airfield could function albeit at a very reduced speed.

The reason Chemical weapons are seen as "Nasty" is that after WW1 , while not a huge proportion of troops were killed by gas a huge number were invalidid out with damaged lungs/hearts and skin…This led to many many slow deaths over the next 20 years or so as ex-soldiers lives were blighted or cut short by the lingering effects of being "gassed"…this is why thet were banned by convention…

As for their use in a Cold War goes hot scenario I feel that the Soviets if they were doing an "Out of the Blue" suprise attack would use them to great effect..but if there is a steady build up of tenson then their effect will be lessened..Also NATO's ability to respond with gas was pathetic in comparison and so not much of a counter-threat…the only WMD that we had were really Tac Nukes and that would lead to a whole different level of escalation--Very quikly!!

For a good background on chemical weapons as WMD check out "The Chemical Weapons Taboo".

My understanding of Russian doctrine of the period was that the use of nuclear and chemical weapons was a given, and that they'd start using them from day 1. NATO's assumptions regarding use, escalation etc. tended to be rather wide of what woudl have been a rather unpleasant reality.

Depending on the time period, NATO would have been chucking nukes before the Sovs anyway, 'no first use' went out of the window decades ago.

It's not 'no first use of *nukes*', it's 'no first use of WMD'. Like I said, Gas = Bio = nukes.

Mmmmm so if the Soviets say tear gassed a city to keep all the civvies indoors and to confuse any military occupiers would NATO then go nuke?? Or if they used lethal chemicals on a stubborn hard point that was behind their lines?/ Would NATO then use nukes???
It;'s a difficult question…But I think David is correct when he says the Soviets would have used everything from day 1……. :(

One of the key doctrinal theories on chemical use was that while they would cause relatively few military casualties the requirement to work in noddy suits and sealed up in vehicles would really degrade the efficiency of NATO forces.

Soviet Cold War vintage doctrine called for persistent agents to the flanks of an advance and non-persistent to the front.
Everybody was more or less trained in protecting themselves from chemical attack, but it worried me more than a tactical nuke--I was never important enough to shoot with a nuke.
Count Natokina.