Very interesting article, but I'm stumbling over a logical flaw there: "Static armies stockpile chemical weapons because they're effective against other static armies without being too costly." -...
Very interesting article, but I'm stumbling over a logical flaw there: "Static armies stockpile chemical weapons because they're effective against other static armies without being too costly." - Loosely paraphrasing the first few paragraphs. To cite the author: "That restricts the usefulness of chemical weapons to static-systems fighting each other or as weapons of terror,"[..]
But then later: "Tanks and infiltration tactics – that is to say, the modern system – succeeded where gas failed,in breaking the trench stalemate, with its superiority at the role demonstrated vividly in WWII."
That seems to be at odds. But I'm not yet finished and I'd chalk it up to fuzzy categories anyway - i.e. "well, it's slightly effective against the static system, but the modern system knocks it out of the park."
I think another reason that static armies fighting one another would still use gas rather than try to modernize is that adding gas to their existing static doctrine is much cheaper, and in terms...
I think another reason that static armies fighting one another would still use gas rather than try to modernize is that adding gas to their existing static doctrine is much cheaper, and in terms of coup proofing, much safer. Moving to a modern system is probably a better value than adding gas to a static system, but I get then sense that static system armies can't afford modernization in the absolute sense.
Very interesting article, but I'm stumbling over a logical flaw there: "Static armies stockpile chemical weapons because they're effective against other static armies without being too costly." - Loosely paraphrasing the first few paragraphs. To cite the author: "That restricts the usefulness of chemical weapons to static-systems fighting each other or as weapons of terror,"[..]
But then later: "Tanks and infiltration tactics – that is to say, the modern system – succeeded where gas failed,in breaking the trench stalemate, with its superiority at the role demonstrated vividly in WWII."
That seems to be at odds. But I'm not yet finished and I'd chalk it up to fuzzy categories anyway - i.e. "well, it's slightly effective against the static system, but the modern system knocks it out of the park."
I think another reason that static armies fighting one another would still use gas rather than try to modernize is that adding gas to their existing static doctrine is much cheaper, and in terms of coup proofing, much safer. Moving to a modern system is probably a better value than adding gas to a static system, but I get then sense that static system armies can't afford modernization in the absolute sense.
This entire blog is a very nice rabbit hole. Been reading about the siege of Minas Tirith for a good while now :D