= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
VoiceOfRa comments on Open Thread, Jul. 27 - Aug 02, 2015 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (220)
Consider chemical warfare in WWI vs. chemical warfare in WWII. I'm no military historian, but my impression is that it was used because it was effective, people realized that it was lose-lose relative to not using chemical warfare, and then it wasn't used in WWII, because both sides reasonably expected that if they started using it, then the other side would as well.
One possibility is that this only works for technologies that are helpful but not transformative. An international campaign to halt the use of guns in warfare would not get very far (like you point out), and it is possible that autonomous military AI is closer to guns than it is chemical warfare.
Chemical warfare was only effective the first couple times it was used, i.e., before people invented the gas mask.
Combat efficiency is much reduced when using gas mask.
Moreover, while gas masks for horses do (did) exist, good luck persuading your horse wearing it. And horses were rather crucial in WWI and still very important in WWII.
We did not see gas used during WWII mostly because of Hitler's aversion and a (mistaken) belief that the Allies had stockpiles of nerve agents and Germany feared their retaliation.
My impression is that chemical weapons were very effective in the Iran-Iraq war (e.g.), despite the gas mask having been invented.