Chemical weapons thread

VX.

Really, dispersing chemical agents isn't that different from dispersing conventional rounds.

The one difference being that "danger close" is a lot farther away, on account of that whole wind thing.

Artillery and air should do just fine to distribute the payload, but there's no reason to use mustard gas if you have access to organophosphate nerve agents.

Its a shame that the Geneva Protocols prohibit the use of tear gas. If you've got a city surrounded, its far better to flush them out alive than napalm them all.

>>31345311
Hi isis/atf/fbi.
Shame on you for even mentioning mustard gas. Id rather be nuked.

>>31345311
my favorite chemical weapon is skunk or whatever its called used to hose down Palestines in Israel. It's completely harmless and will make the people soaked with it feel ill for days on end, constantly throwing up. It will be the most horrible experience of their life. It smells like raw sewage and takes several days to remove. It's extremely effective and completely incapacitates peoples will to fight.

Put the hose in the hand of some dick ass Israeli soldier, and he'll casually ruin entire city blocks and make them unlivable for weeks. "oops, missed the protestors"

Also, mustard gas is old school. There are for more potent nerve agents. The nazi's invented the first ones- tubin and saren and didn't use them despite being in artillery shells and ready to use. They knew it would change the rules of war to disastrous effect.

>>31345697
The main reason they didn't use them is that their logistics were horse drawn.

File: kid.jpg (40KB, 450x672px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 450x672px

>>31345311
Does the 2nd Amendment give one the right to bear chemical weapons?

>>31345740
Chemical weapons are weapons, weapons are arms, right to bear arms, sounds good.

File: Capture.jpg (275KB, 1396x747px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 1396x747px

>>31345708
nah they were ready to go.

Personally, I think Ambros was just giving Hitler any reason not to use them.

>>31345740
yes

but also no

>>31345807
Well, I read somewhere that they couldn't get a gas mask for horses that would still allow them to pull a cart.

If the Germans launch gas, the allies launch gas, and Jeeps put up with gas better than horses.

>>31345426
Yeah. I really don't understand why the use of tear gas is banned.

>>31345812
Could you elaborate please?

>>31345867
you can have as much pepper spray as you want.

>>31345906
But where does the line get drawn, and why?

>>31345967
>>31345867
its the same line of though as "can you own a nuke"

the line is drawn at the money, infrastructure and motive of the private citizen.

If you have the money, time, technology and knowledge to create large amounts of weaponized chemicals (for the purpose of this discussion im talking large quantities at least above those used in the Tokyo sarin gas attacks) then you could. You'd be on one huge ass watchlist but then once youve created your chemical weapons....for what purpose? surely not self defense against a robber. And although the geneva convention only applies to uniformed soldiers and militia of the signing parties, a private citizen unleashing sarin gas at a guy trying to rob them is gonna get fucked for excessive force and porbably a shitton of collateral damage

So just like nukes and all the other shit...technically you COULD make and own one with many financial and political roadblocks......but for what purpose?

>>31345967
Are you being serious?

If it can kill lots of people really quickly, you can't have it.

File: o-ORLANDO-PULSE-facebook.jpg (428KB, 2000x1000px)

428KB, 2000x1000px

>>31346134
So should ban AR-15s and high cap mags too?

>>31346064
Wait, are you saying that I, as a US citizen, I can own nukes and chemical weapons?

>>31345740
The Founders would say yes, but the courts today would say no.

>>31345812
SHALL
NOT
INFRINGE

>>31346322
Don't take me as legal advice, but I think you can own a Nuke, provided you have an FEL.
Just get ready to hang paper targets on your doggos.

>>31346399
That's not true at all. If you went back in time and told George Washington about Sarin gas and nukes he'd be all like "THATS FUCKAN NUTS" because he wasn't insane.

>>31346296
Ok, lets lone gunman it out.

You get an one AR-15 (two if you want to dual wield them), and I'll get 10,000 remote detonated Sarin gas bombs and we'll see who can murder the most civilians.

>>31346601
So there is a threshold number of dead civilians murdered in a fixed amount of time to constitute illegality? What is that number, and what is that time frame? And from where do these precedents hail?

>>31346322
as his post says.

Yes, but the hoops are so high its close to impossible for a single person without billions of dollars backing you up

>>31346601
>George Washington
>wasn't insane

no. He was an ABSOLUTE MAD MAN

>>31346064
>not having a button that fills your home with nerve agents the moment you hear a bump in the night

Are you even trying? I just hope my family and all my neighbors remember how to get their suits on fast enough...

How is it going Bashar?

>>31346729
So what about something cheaper, like a grenade or a claymore. Where can I buy some of these?

>>31347081
classified as Destructive Device

again, hoops

>>31347208
What are these "hoops" and how does one jump through them to get grenades, claymore mines, chemical weapons, and nuclear bombs?

>>31346664
I get your argument and its a great philosophical question.

How many hairs do you have to remove from your head to be balding, and how many to be bald? At what point do you remove one hair and become "bald?" No one would ever be able to agree to a definition.

The obvious answer is that many of our constructs are fictional, unscientific and subjective. You cant define a balding person with math. Unless you reinvent what balding is to fit a mathematical explanation.

But would you argue to get rid of the word, the very concept without science? You would have to cross out every word in the dictionary, you wouldn't be able to speak, to think, or participate in society. At best, you might seriously nail down the word "is."

The question we are on, is how lethal should individual human beings be? The answer isn't a number as you have asked for. Because weapons do not guarantee a certain number of kills, even a nuke can land 'harmlessly' in the pacific. An ak47 does not guarantee me 13 kills, whereas a 9mm pistol gets me 4 kills. Nor can the AK47 have perfect accuracy and get you 10,000 kills. You have to agree on this. This is not a math question, it is a question of probability. What will PROBABLY make people too lethal?

File: 3453535345.jpg (17KB, 512x384px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 512x384px

>>31347281
google is your friend here

but the short version is money, paperwork and time

Do i have the right to manufature and use N-Stoff as a self defense weapon?

hoax/false flag or not.

Did the recent use of chemical weapons prove useful to anyone or was it the same old stuff people already knew in the technical manuals?

>>31346064
SHALL

>>31345697
Mustard gas is a blistering agent, not a nerve agent.

>>31347352
>anon loses his shit
>goalposts moving at such speed that they vaporize due to friction caused by air
Where is this referenced in the second amendment?
Chemical weapons are g2g, doesn't mean one is less accountable for their actions.