Deterring Chemical Warfare

Spiers, Edward M.

doi:10.1007/978-1-349-10505-2_9

Cited by 3 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to this data, admissions rose steadily throughout the war; those for 1918 (113,764) were almost double those for 1915–17 (71,942) 35. However, this temporal rise was primarily a function of increased use, the quantity of chemical consumed having risen from 3,870 tons in 1915 to 65,160 tons in 1918 36. Greater numbers of patients did not represent a widespread failure of treatment or protective measures.…”

Section: Physical Effects Of Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition the British produced the Livens projector, which, according to captured German troops, was the most demoralizing weapon the Allies possessed, making life ‘utterly unbearable’ 30. First used at the battle of Arras in April 1917, the Livens projector propelled a drum containing 30 lb of chemical (usually phosgene) over a range of 1,700 yards 31. In batteries of 25 they delivered a massive quantity of agent with accuracy and little warning.…”

Section: Physical Effects Of Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Known as ‘yellow cross’ from the shell markings, the toxin immediately produced a flood of admissions: 160,970 soldiers presented at CCSs between 21 July and 23 November 1917, of whom 1,859 died 43. It was estimated that 75 per cent had been exposed to mustard gas 44. Deaths initially occurred because the toxin had delayed effects 45.…”

Section: Physical Effects Of Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…30 First used at the battle of Arras in April 1917, the Livens projector propelled a drum containing 30 lb of chemical (usually phosgene) over a range of 1,700 yards. 31 In batteries of 25 they delivered a massive quantity of agent with accuracy and little warning. In response the Germans devised a 'Gaswerfer', which gave a high concentration of lethal gas by firing hundreds of large phosgene projectiles over a limited front.…”

Section: Physical Effects Of Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Terror Weapons: The British Experience of Gas and Its Treatment in the First World War

Jones

2014

War in History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Chemical weapons accounted for only 1 per cent of the 750,000 British troops killed in the First World War and yet caused disproportionate casualties (estimated at 180,100). The considerable investment in the development of new toxins and methods of delivery was designed to maintain the elements of surprise and uncertainty as these accentuated their psychological effect. Soldiers were continually challenged on the battlefield by combinations of different types of agent designed to undermine their confidence in respirators, disorientate them, and erode their morale. At first, army doctors practised defensive medicine, invaliding their patients for protracted periods to the UK or base hospitals. By 1917, progressive study of the physical and psychological effects of different types of toxin allowed physicians to design new management strategies. Borrowing ideas from shell shock, specialist units were set up closer to the front line and medical officers taught to identify crucial points in the course of illness to accelerate recovery times and forestall the accretion of psychosomatic symptoms.

show abstract

Section: Physical Effects Of Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Physical Effects Of Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Physical Effects Of Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Physical Effects Of Gasmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Terror Weapons: The British Experience of Gas and Its Treatment in the First World War

Jones

2014

War in History

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Edward Spiers () estimates annual gas dispersals on the Western Front as 3870 tons (1915); 16,535 (1916); 38,635 (1917); 65,160 (1918).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Natures of War

Gregory

2015

Antipode

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nature" is more than a resource bank whose riches can trigger armed conflict and finance its depredations; it is also a medium through which military and paramilitary violence is conducted. The militarisation of nature is part of a dialectic in which earthy, vibrant matter shapes the contours of conflict and leaves its marks on the bodies of soldiers who are both vectors and victims of military violence. Three case studies identify some of the central bio-physical formations that became entangled with armed conflict in the twentieth century: the mud of the Western Front in the First World War, the deserts of North Africa in the Second World War, and the rainforests of Vietnam. Taken together, these reveal vital connections between the materiality and corporeality of modern war and their continued relevance to its contemporary transformations. For Neil 1In his too short life, Neil Smith had much to say about both nature and war: from his seminal discussion of "the production of nature" in his first book, Uneven Development (Smith 1984) 2 to his dissections of war in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries in American Empire (Smith 2004)-where he identified the ends of the First and Second World Wars as crucial punctuations in the modern genealogy of globalisation-and its coda, The Endgame of Globalization (Smith 2005), a critique of America's wars conducted in the shadows of 9/11. And yet, surprisingly, he never linked the two. He was of course aware of their connections. He always insisted that the capitalist production of nature, like that of space, was never-could not be-a purely domestic matter, and he emphasised that the modern projects of colonialism and imperialism depended upon often spectacular displays of military violence. But he did not explore those relations in any systematic or substantive fashion.He was not alone. The great Marxist critic Raymond Williams (1976:219) once famously identified "nature" as "perhaps the most complex word in the [English] language". Since he wrote, countless commentators have elaborated on its complexities, but few of them have paused to note that "war" was not one of Williams's keywords (though "violence"-"often now a difficult word" [1983:329]-was). 3 Williams was radicalised by the rise of European fascism; he joined the British Army in 1941 and served as a tank commander during the Second World War. Yet at its end he found the world had turned, and it was for that very reason that he sought to find the terms for a postwar world in which, seemingly, "war" had no place. 4In 1945, after the ending of the wars with Germany and Japan, I was released from the Army to return to Cambridge. University term had already begun, and many

show abstract

The Two Faces of Opposition to Chemical Weapons: Sincere Versus Insincere Norm-Holders

Blair

Chu

Schwartz

2021

Journal of Conflict Resolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prominent research holds that the use of weapons of mass destruction is taboo. But how strong are these norms? Investigating this question among the mass public, we argue that some citizens actually support taboo policies in private but are unwilling to express counter-normative opinions openly due to fear of social sanction. These insincere norm-holders are difficult to identify empirically because they are observationally equivalent to sincere norm-holders in direct-question surveys. To overcome this challenge, we use a list design, which allows survey respondents to indirectly express sensitive opinions. The results from three list experiments show that between 10% and 17% of Americans falsify their preferences over chemical weapons use when asked directly. In an extension, we explore our framework in the realm of nuclear weapons and elite behavior. Our findings advance a specific debate on the strength of weapons taboos, while our conceptualization of insincere norm-holders and methodological application have broader implications for how scholars might think about and measure norms in international politics.

show abstract

Deterring Chemical Warfare

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Terror Weapons: The British Experience of Gas and Its Treatment in the First World War

Terror Weapons: The British Experience of Gas and Its Treatment in the First World War

The Natures of War

The Two Faces of Opposition to Chemical Weapons: Sincere Versus Insincere Norm-Holders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About