I think you make a great point, and it in fact fits with the reasoning here. Although militaries are mobile and stealthy, civilians, even during wartime, remain rooted and obvious. That’s just the nature of things: it’s much easier to make soldiers mobile than it is to make civilians because during a war, not considering the value of human life for its own sake, civilians serve purposes tied to fixed resources like farms and factories. This suggests that chemical weapons should still be appealing in war, but only against civilian targets.
Quick Googling isn’t getting me something like a list of times chemical warfare agents were used, but I expect it would show a trend towards primarily use against civilians after the first world war.
I think you make a great point, and it in fact fits with the reasoning here. Although militaries are mobile and stealthy, civilians, even during wartime, remain rooted and obvious. That’s just the nature of things: it’s much easier to make soldiers mobile than it is to make civilians because during a war, not considering the value of human life for its own sake, civilians serve purposes tied to fixed resources like farms and factories. This suggests that chemical weapons should still be appealing in war, but only against civilian targets.
Quick Googling isn’t getting me something like a list of times chemical warfare agents were used, but I expect it would show a trend towards primarily use against civilians after the first world war.