[jmacusa]

The outlawing of gas as a weapon had little to do with humanitarian concerns and more to do with it being largely impractical a weapon. Poison gas as it was used in the First World War depended entirely on climatic conditions and once it was released was subject to whatever way the wind took it. Used in a mass concentration under favorable conditions it could be somewhat effective however many was the time the stuff ended up causing problems for those using it. Today's never gas agents are much more lethal that their fore runners.

[driftdiver]

When I was in South Korea we were told at one point to expect 75% casualties because of these types of weapons.

[Jumper]

You are incorrect in your assumption that your reason was the reasoning for gas and chemical agents being outlawed. Read up on it, or go to Belgium on 11th month being November 11th, at the 11th hour, and on the moment of the 11th minute as the crowd utters just under their breath the words, “We will remember” which will rise up and move you like nothing you have experienced and then understand why these weapons were outlawed.

[JudgemAll]

Gas is only another parameter in the combined armed approach to warfare. It basically slows the enemy troops which now have to don costly and expensive protective equipment... or die in greater number, whichever the calculation dictates.

By itself it is not very effective, just don a mask and cursory protection, in the gas attack is pretty much ineffective. However, as a terror weapon, as a Sarin Tokyo style surprize attack, or combined with a conventional attack, it can level the playing field and add to the confusion and flanking of the enemy.

Much as Napoleon combined infantry, cavalry and artillery into an effective mean, add gas to that combination to complicate things and it works.