biological/chemical weapons

[Inverse Icarus]

come on now, we all love the banana, but the MB bomb is the shiznit.

[Nemo]

yeah, i guess it is true that the spys all over the place were anoying as anything. i am starting tosee how this may be much better!

[ProfessorPhobos]

Most sides in WW2 had stockpiles of chemical weaponry, but only Japan actually used them(on the Chinese.) Japan's unit 731 actually developed a number of early biological weaponry, spreading death and disease in China for years after the war.

The other sides didn't want to use them because it would have brought chemical reprisals. Hitler, in particular, had no long range heavy bombers to hit Britain with chemical bombs, while Britain could gas Berlin...

[ProfessorPhobos]

Most sides in WW2 had stockpiles of chemical weaponry, but only Japan actually used them(on the Chinese.) Japan's unit 731 actually developed a number of early biological weaponry, spreading death and disease in China for years after the war.

The other sides didn't want to use them because it would have brought chemical reprisals. Hitler, in particular, had no long range heavy bombers to hit Britain with chemical bombs, while Britain could gas Berlin...

I think that all three weapons of mass destruction should have a place in Civ 3.

((Agent Orange is technically a chemical weapon, but it's not a weapon of mass destruction. It's a defoliant. Most countries use phosphourous grenades as marker flares- those technically qualify as "chemical weapons." But not chemical WMDs.))

[Sarxis]

I agree that chemical warfare would be cool in CIV, but it hasn't actually been used too often in war, at least not when you compare it to conventional warfare.

AFAIK

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I agree that chemical warfare would be cool in CIV, but it hasn't actually been used too often in war, at least not when you compare it to conventional warfare.

AFAIK

And not many cities have had nuclear weapons planted in them by spys. Civ 3 is a game of imagination as well.

[ProfessorPhobos]

Well, it saw pretty extensive usage in WW1, a certain degree of use in WW2, and quite a bit of use in the Iran-Iraq war. There were massive stockpiles in NATO and Warsaw Pact military bases, "just in case."

Most countries don't employ it regularly because it's icky and it gets the UN mad at you. (Which actually doesn't mean anything. But it usually gets more powerful nations mad at you too.)

[Taso_84]

chemical and bio warfare is ot that disimilar to nuclear warfare in that the reason most nation prob didt use it, was the fear of retaliation. After the horrors of WW1 even Hitler prob realised that (he was a corpral in WW1 so would have had, 1st hand knowledge)

[Nemo]

Originally posted by Anunikoba
I agree that chemical warfare would be cool in CIV, but it hasn't actually been used too often in war, at least not when you compare it to conventional warfare.

AFAIK

have you not heard of WWI ? or Gulf War? 3rd world countries now adays use it without a care in the world. its cheap and takes out thousands. it was banned after WWI due to its horific effects, but many inhumane, couward loser countries like those in the middle east still use them today.

[ProfessorPhobos]

Not only did Hitler serve, he was subject to gas attacks and even wounded in one. (He got better, sadly.) So there might have been an inner revulsion to use such horrific weapons.

As for the ignorant comment made by the other guy, no, chemical weaponry is not used regularly by third world nations. Except for the Iran-Iraq war, of course.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by ProfessorPhobos
As for the ignorant comment made by the other guy, no, chemical weaponry is not used regularly by third world nations. Except for the Iran-Iraq war, of course.

Agentina, Brazil, China, Cuba, Egypt, Yugoslavia, India, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Libya, North Korea, Pkaistan, Russia, South Africa, SOuth Korea, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan . . .

All of these countries (and then some) have the capibility or stockpiles of Chemical weapons. granted they are not ALL third world countries, but i see more third world countries in their than just Iran and Iraq

ProfessorPhobos: so, maybe you should think before you speak? what are you a professor of, anyway? it seems this forum is the only way you would get the title maybe? idiot.

[ProfessorPhobos]

A little information is a dangerous thing...

You said that many third world nations regularly employed(i.e., used) chemical weaponry. This is very much not true.

An awful lot of countries have chemical weapons capability, but that doesn't mean they are gassing anyone.

Twit.

[Dr. Nick]

AFAIK, the smallpox that killed indigenous peoples in the Americans could not be used on purpose. Thing was, the disease appeared and it extinguished a large percentage due to the lack of immunity of the indigenous peoples.

And I think the Germans developed mustard gas first...


Still, I hope CivIII has all these things, specially for the espionage.

[Dr. Nick]

Third world nations use machetes and AK-47s, not bio and chem weapons...

And Argentina and Brazil designing and stockpiling chemical weapons is... hilarious.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Nemo


Agentina, Brazil, China, Cuba, Egypt, Yugoslavia, India, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Libya, North Korea, Pkaistan, Russia, South Africa, SOuth Korea, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan . . .

All of these countries (and then some) have the capibility or stockpiles of Chemical weapons. granted they are not ALL third world countries, but i see more third world countries in their than just Iran and Iraq

ProfessorPhobos: so, maybe you should think before you speak? what are you a professor of, anyway? it seems this forum is the only way you would get the title maybe? idiot.

There's no reason to insult him. If you read his post (which I'm sure you did because you quoted him...) he says chemicals weapons are not used. Big difference.

Though I still think Civ 3 should have this sort of thing because it exists in the real world, and Civ 3 is about history. Re-making it anyway.

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by Nemo
Agentina, Brazil, China, Cuba, Egypt, Yugoslavia, India, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Libya, North Korea, Pkaistan, Russia, South Africa, SOuth Korea, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan . . .

1. Not all of those nations are 3rd world.
2. They may have the weapons, but do not use them.
3. You forgot the USA.
4. Manners, manners...

[Hoek]

In terms of biological warfare, I don't think we've even seen the true dawn of it. With genetic engineering, it's conceivable that we could make a weapon that would target an individual or that could be used against a particular ethnicity. Just because they weren't used extensively doesn't mean diseases shouldn't be part of the game. I think the disease factor and other natural disasters added substantial dynamics to Alpha Centauri. Indeed, while civ basically ignored public health altogether, it at least played a role in decision-making in AC, which is much more realistic.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by ProfessorPhobos
A little information is a dangerous thing...

You said that many third world nations regularly employed(i.e., used) chemical weaponry. This is very much not true.

An awful lot of countries have chemical weapons capability, but that doesn't mean they are gassing anyone.

Twit.

Sorry, but were i come from people say "use" for things like:
"i use my car" even though it is only sitting in the driveway, but not currently driving it. i know that is incorrect, but that is how i meant "used" ...as in they have it and can apply it or have applied it more often then other countries (i.e. second and first world countries) at this present time in world history.

and, yes, countries other that Iran and Iraq have gassed people, both 3rd world and 2nd world countries, in the last several decades.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by El Awrence
And Argentina and Brazil designing and stockpiling chemical weapons is... hilarious.

i didnt say they were all stockpiling it...i said they were EITHER capable of producing OR stockpiling. please read.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by Earthling7


1. Not all of those nations are 3rd world.

no $hit...please read. i already stated that.

Originally posted by Earthling7
2. They may have the weapons, but do not use them.

no sh!t...please read. i already stated that.

Originally posted by Earthling7
3. You forgot the USA.

I did not FORGET anyone... i merely got tired of typing all the freakin' countries. hence the reason for the elipse (...) and my statement of "and then some" in regards to more countries not listed.

Originally posted by Earthling7 4. Manners, manners...

hehe...what are those?


p.s. i mean this post very light heartedly...it was #4 that made me do it

[ProfessorPhobos]

Of course. You weren't wrong. You were just right in French.

Right....

You are correct that countries other than Iraq and Iran have used chemical weaponry...France, Germany, and Great Britain in WW1(which has been mentioned) all come to mind.

But you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, to say that many other third world nations have used 'em. Chemical warfare has pretty much been confined to Imperial Japan, World War 1, and the Iraq-Iran war. And a lot of those nations you mentioned do not have chemical weapons stockpiles. The Sudan, for example, does not. Neither does Cuba.

And the Argentina\Brazil thing is insane. Of course they have the potential to make chemical weaponry. I have the potential to make chemical weaponry[/I]- I can go to a science supply store, say I'm a chemistry teacher, and move my crap out of my garage. Chemical weapons are the cheapest weapon of mass destruction available. Would you say "Japan" would go on that list because they have the capability to manufacture nerve gas? Hell, Switzerland could do it.

Claiming that there have been regular uses of chemical weaponry of mass destruction is like mentioning that brief nuclear war between Pakistan and India.

Because it never happened.

(Actually, to reply to another poster, the United States has ostensibly eliminated its offensive chemical weapons capability- we don't have shells loaded with nerve gas sitting near the Fulda Gap. We maintain a stock for research purposes, but it's not up to military levels.)

[Nemo]

Libya had a chemical warfare plant arsoned that killed many in 1990 the toxins that were released. Yugoslavia, Bosnia (some say 2nd world country, other claim 3rd world...i consider them 2nd world, though) used them in 1996. Sri Lanka used them from '90-95. Bosnia-Herzegovina in '93 (2nd world, though). Burma 1995. Philippines (its a 2nd world, but some argue that its 3rd) in 1996. Algeria in 1992. Afghanistan used them against the Soviets (reportedly). Terrorist with Syrian funding used them. (and i am sure there are other terrorists groups that were funded and equipped by their governments which would easily fall here, but since there is no "proof" of the connection, i will refrain from any other connections...but the Syrian one is fact.)

so please, before you say "wrong wrong wrong wrong" why don't you "read read read read", you illiterate buffoon.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by ProfessorPhobos
And a lot of those nations you mentioned do not have chemical weapons stockpiles. The Sudan, for example, does not. Neither does Cuba.

you really are not reading what i am writing are you? do you not know what "or" means? it is not synonymous with "and" ...just in case. hence the reason i wrote "produciton capable OR stockpile". stop being an @ss and read next time (if you can).

Originally posted by ProfessorPhobos
And the Argentina\Brazil thing is insane. Of course they have the potential to make chemical weaponry. I have the potential to make chemical weaponry[/I]- I can go to a science supply store, say I'm a chemistry teacher, and move my crap out of my garage. Chemical weapons are the cheapest weapon of mass destruction available. Would you say "Japan" would go on that list because they have the capability to manufacture nerve gas? Hell, Switzerland could do it.

true, anyone can make them, even a 5 year with a home chemestry set. but i was thinking more of mass production.

Originally posted by ProfessorPhobos
Claiming that there have been regular uses of chemical weaponry of mass destruction ...

i NEVER said MASS destruction.

please go get hooked on phonix or something...you obviously cannont read alot of things. here is a head start: Aa Bb Cc Dd Ee
...i even gave you 2 of the 5 main vowels

[ProfessorPhobos]

The English we are communicating in must be different, for many of your pathetic, juvenile insults to be accurate.

But...

Never said "mass destruction." Listen, the whole thread was about chemical\biological weapons of mass destruction. THOSE weapons were only used during...(drumroll), WW1, the Iran Iraq War, and the Sino-Japanese war.

Now, I'm not quite sure what you mean by other "chemical weapons."

If you mean nerve agents used in assasinations, I might be inclined to agree with some of those examples.(The Mossad, for instance, used a chemical nerve agent in an assasination attempt.) If you mean tear gas or phosphorous grenades, then you would be (somewhat) correct. But, again, we are not talking about those things. We were talking about Chemical weapons of mass destruction and their usage in warfare. Which, I repeat, has not been "regularly employed by third world nations", nor has it been used by "many inhumane, couward loser countries like those in the middle east still use them today."(quoted, from you.)

However, if you are going to say that all those wars involved the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction, you are going to have to give me some kind of reference. And if they weren't C-WMD's, then this whole argument is predicated on a basic linguistic misunderstanding. (Are you a native english speaker? You don't appear to be.)

Of course, this is all from an illiterate buffoon.

I'm not really interested in continued communication with yourself- you haven't shown any real interest in reasoned debate, nor have you shown the capability to do so even if interested.

So, I wash my hands of this.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by ProfessorPhobos
The English we are communicating in must be different, for many of your pathetic, juvenile insults to be accurate.

well, i will stop with the insults upon a rebuttle of some facts in your favor. so far i have provided you with many facts, but have yet to see a rebuttle of any intelligence. Not only that, but you have mangled much of what i have written due to lack of compitence in understanding the english language on your part, or pure illiteracy. i do not mean this as a jest any longer, i honestly believe you have chosen not to fully read what i have written, and have just flung insults back without any backing of what you hvae to say.

Never said "mass destruction." Listen, the whole thread was about chemical\biological weapons of mass destruction.

again, if you read the topic it says "biological/chemical weapons" not "biological/chemical weapons of mass distruction." therefore, this seems to be something you have decided to incoorperate for the benifit of your argument.

THOSE weapons were only used during...(drumroll), WW1, the Iran Iraq War, and the Sino-Japanese war.

yes, on a large scale this is true.

However, if you are going to say that all those wars involved the use of chemical weapons of mass destruction, you are going to have to give me some kind of reference.

well, lets see i have given you countries and dates pulled from several books that i have used while obtaining my degree in poli sci. i have done the research, and read the books. you are more then welcome to look them up yourself, due to your lack of understanding, i think some reading of the material would help you.

(Are you a native english speaker? You don't appear to be.)

sorry, but i cant help but to respond here...
yes i am a native speaker, but fortunately you would never know this since we are writing. i think Lorizael was the only one here who also understands english, because he actually understood what i meant. i had to look up many of the more recent uses of chemical weapons for pure rebuttle purposes, because that was not my original intent. but you ignorance of the fact of what i have presented, and lack of understanding have compelled me to continue.

however, i think more than anything it is my drive to getting 500 posts so i can have my freakin' custom avatar back that truely drives my ambition to respond

[ProfessorPhobos]

Sigh.

You want to talk about all types of chemical weaponry in history?

I think Civ 3 should accurately simulate the phosphorous grenade. I think that there should be a resource, called "Phosphorous", so you could build the unit "Soldiers equipped with Phosphorous grenades."

Sigh.

Once again you have said nothing of value. Your so called dates and countries mean nothing without backing. Here, watch:
Somalia, 1892. Greenland, 1923. Nova Scotia, 567.

The thread was clearly about chemical\biological weapons of mass destruction and their use in Civ3 as an addendum to the nuclear weapons already represented. Anybody would realize that no one was talking about tear gas or smoke markers.

Frankly, I'd also like to know what kind of chemical weaponry you mean, that's not a weapon of mass destruction? The only "chemical weapon" I know of, that isn't under the category of "mass destruction", is the phosphorous grenade. Do you want to talk about Phosphorous grenades?

In other words, even if it weren't perfectly clear already, the only reasonable assumption about chem\bio weapons in Civ 3 is that it would be the "big" kind. After all, we don't have "Rifles" and "Machete Attacks" simulated.

Accusing my of illiteracy is getting on my nerves. I finished a book(Gideon's Spies, the secret history of the Mossad, if you are wondering) just before I came down here to check my electronic mail.(which, again, I would have to be able to read.)

Let's re-cap this thread: Someone said something about chem\bio weapons in Civ 3. Someone else said that they hadn't been used all that often in history. You made the claim that chemical weaponry is used regularly by third world nations and "couward loser nations". I said that chemical weaponry had only been used in (drumroll), Iran-Iraq, WW1, and the Sino-Japanese war. Then you spouted off some made up dates in an attempt to prove your point. Tell me, do you remember the hoopla over the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war? The UN condemnations? All that notice? I strongly suspect it would at least get mentioned once if the same weapons had been regularly used in third world nations. I mean, a footnote, somewhere.


<<<<,well, lets see i have given you countries and dates pulled from several books that i have used while obtaining my degree in poli sci. i have done the research, and read the books. you are more then welcome to look them up yourself, due to your lack of understanding, i think some reading of the material would help you. >>>>>>

In other words, you pulled them out of your ass. I suspect people with Poli Sci degrees start their sentences with capitol letters.

But, just to have fun, I'll set google on it. Let's read up on the usage of chemical weapons, shall we?

Okay, I've got to admit I'm wrong- Phosphorous grenades are NOT considered chemical weapons, because they do their damage with thermal energy. My bad. (Which, of course, leaves me no concept of what chemical weapons exist that aren't WMD's. Let's keep looking.)

Once again, I apologize. I missed 2 uses of chemical weapons- by Italian forces against Abyssnia in the 1930's, and by Egypt in Yemen in the 60's. So, I admit that you were correct about Egypt.(Even though you didn't mention Egypt.)
The rest of the stuff you said? False.

For those of you who are keeping score in this futile act of me slamming my head into a brick wall, his original list was...

<<<<>>>>>

I'm afraid that you've made most of this up. Now, chemical agents used by terrrorists is somewhat different- Japan had to deal with Aum Shinro Kyro(the subway thing), after all. That one is the only documented use of chemical weaponry on a mass scale by terrorists groups. Small use, perhaps, such as poisoning someone, or spraying nerve gas through an aeresol can for assasination purposes, but those do not really count.

So, shall we end this tiresome exchange or shall we keep arguing into eternity?

Though you did help me find some nifty sites on this stuff. I suppose the enrichment of my own knowledge is a worthwhile result, even if it's too late for you.

[Nemo]

Originally posted by ProfessorPhobos
Anybody would realize that no one was talking about tear gas or smoke markers.

granted, and neither was i.

Frankly, I'd also like to know what kind of chemical weaponry you mean, that's not a weapon of mass destruction?

well originall you said "Claiming that there have been regular uses of chemical weaponry of mass destruction..." which lead me to believe that you had thought the countries i was claiming were using the weapons to kill mass populations with these checmical weapons. so, yes, i am referring to CWMD but the countries that i have referred to have not used them except in sparce areas effecting a small enough popluation that they might not be considerd a "mass". so, i believe we are referring to the same deadly weapons.

Accusing my of illiteracy is getting on my nerves.

well, calling me ignorant while misinterpreting what i write gets on my nerves... so we are even.

I finished a book(Gideon's Spies, the secret history of the Mossad, if you are wondering) just before I came down here to check my electronic mail.(which, again, I would have to be able to read.)

good for you...i am 10 pages shy of finishing "Distant Thunder: Patterns of Conflict in the Developing World" by Donald M. Snow

You made the claim that chemical weaponry is used regularly by third world nations and "couward loser nations".

and i think this is where we all went astray. see, the thing is, i never said "used regularly". this implies that they constantly and presently use these weapons on an almost daily basis. what i did say was thay ther are "many inhumane, couward loser countries like those in the middle east still use them today." (see i even kept all of my typos ). so, with outh the adjectives, i said: "many countries like those in the middle east still use them today." I mean, if i say: "i still use my '69 corvette today" does that necessarily imply that i am driving it this minute? no. and this is where you got all flush and called me ignorant because you didn't understand my point.

Tell me, do you remember the hoopla over the use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war? The UN condemnations? All that notice? I strongly suspect it would at least get mentioned once if the same weapons had been regularly used in third world nations. I mean, a footnote, somewhere.

yes, i do remember that, and the UN and others have condemed the use of biological warfare for decades (almost a century now) which is exactly why you dont see it mentioned often. and it can sometimes be found of a footnote of some cover up theory. it is not uncommon for a country to try and cover up their hainis acts with lies, misinformation, and propaganda specifically becuase of the condemnations of many countries from around the world. the same countries that could make or break the coalition that used them. it is not in that coaltion's interest to have the world go against them and risk the chance of war crime trials, or military aid to their opposision, or some other negative effect upon them.

Poli Sci degrees start their sentences with capitol letters.

well, if i only had a degree in poli sci, then i might agree. but that isnt the case. due to all of the typing i do, i find myself using short cuts, typos, and lowercases on anything informal that i do, as a time saver, and a carperal tunnel saver

But, just to have fun, I'll set google on it. Let's read up on the usage of chemical weapons, shall we?...The rest of the stuff you said? False.

ok...lets see
lybia:
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1990/90031603.html
(qutestion 3)
bosnia/yugoslavia:
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/bosniacw/
sri lanka (ok on this one, they were banned from the CWC for testing chem weapons. i was wrong, i dont beleive they actually used it against an enemy. but the did "test" it...what/whom ever that may have been)
http://www.dwcw.org/cgi/wwwbbs.cgi?Sri-Lanka&185

ok thats the first 3, if you want i can continue...but i am getting tired of looking all this stuff up on the net. but, it you want i can continue.

Once again, I apologize. I missed 2 uses of chemical weapons- by Italian forces against Abyssnia in the 1930's, and by Egypt in Yemen in the 60's. So, I admit that you were correct about Egypt.(Even though you didn't mention Egypt.)

i did not know about the italian forces. although, i looked it up. very interesting. see i learned something. this isn't all a waste
i purposely left egypt out because i dont know how to classify it. i found many of egypt's chem weapon information terrorist related, that was not traceable to the governement (although it doesnt mean they were or were not responsible). and i was trying to find things from the late 70's onward to try and stay on track with my comment of "us[ing] them today" but yes, egypt did use nuclear weapons from '62-'67 during the yemen civil war (i think).

So, shall we end this tiresome exchange or shall we keep arguing into eternity?

no, not to eternity...but i do have 63 more posts to go till 500 (i want my custom avatar back...i am determined )
truce excepted. i think that we are just not understanding each other at first...then jumping the gun to blasphimise each other. ...besides i am tired

Though you did help me find some nifty sites on this stuff. I suppose the enrichment of my own knowledge is a worthwhile result

me too...cheers!

[Sarxis]

Again I must reiterate my point that chem/bio weapons really have not been used that much when compared to conventional warfare. I suspect that this is due to international taboo on the use of them, and the fear that if used against someone, they will be used right back at'cha.

I am not saying that they haven't been used, or haven't caused many thousands of casualties throughout history, but only they are not the mainline (or even close) chose of hardware in war.

[ProfessorPhobos]

Luckily, this seems to be winding down.

Now, I think the final, remaining miscommunication is one what exactly constitutes the use of a chemical weapon. The Libyan thing you mention was an accident at a plant. Sri Lanka was testing it...I was thinking in terms of "nation on nation" uses, not lab accidents, or strange tests... it's no big deal, really, what the hell we're talking about anymore.

The Bosnian thing is quite interesting. Thanks for the link.

[ProfessorPhobos]

<<<,me too...cheers!>>>>>


Ah, now I see! Your British! The English we are speaking really is different!