Warsaw Pact use of chemical weapons.

[Ironside]

Looking through my military references, I was struck by the number of mentions of WP chemical weapons capabilities, compared with their mention in the T2K backstory. As NATO forces only had nukes do people think that NATO would have responded to WP chemical attacks with tactical nuclear weapons

I know that in the Cold War there was great emphasis placed on NBC defensive tactics but I can't see NATO commanders taking chemical strikes without some form of retaliation. Personally my feeling is that due to such response from NATO, WP forces would probably use chemical strikes in concert with tactical nuclear weapon use for critical operations only.

What are others opinions

[HorseSoldier]

The US at least had stocks of chemical weapons available for response but I don't know that they'd be rapidly available (don't think anything was available in theater for instance).

My guess would be chem weapons slammed all over the Chinese front but much more restrained against western forces.

[mikeo80]

I think we have to look at real life for a possible answer. In Gulf War I, it seemed that Sadaam had some WMD of the chemical types, based on evidence from the Kurds. He also knew that if he used them against the US led coalition, we PROBABLY would have turned Bagdad and other places of note into fused glass....Sadamm KNEW that if he sent WMD against Israel....well, let's just say that our guys would not have had to bother picking up any pieces....there wouldn't be any pieces....

A buddy of mine was in GWI. He was with a MASH unit with 82nd Airborne. The unofficial word he heard was if they saw the Israeli Army approaching, they do three things:

1) Run Up a BIG American flag
2) sling longarms over shoulder
3) Wave and Point towards Bagdad

He also heard (You know how rumors are) that the night that Sadaam sent Scuds into Israel, our AWACS saw the ENTIRE Israeli airforce IN THE AIR. One guess where THEY were going. George Bush talked them down. Barely.

[Matt Wiser]

They say that when SECSTATE Baker met with Tariq Aziz a week before GW I kicked off, he told Aziz that any WMD use would be treated as a nuclear attack on the U.S. and responded to accordingly. "A swift and devastating response" is what U.S. News and World Report said. In 1991, you didn't need to know what that meant: you knew it meant nuclear.

[pmulcahy11b]

He also heard (You know how rumors are) that the night that Sadaam sent Scuds into Israel, our AWACS saw the ENTIRE Israeli airforce IN THE AIR. One guess where THEY were going. George Bush talked them down. Barely.

I understand they stood on the ground except for normal CAP, but we had to make them BIG promises to get them to do that -- supposedly, those promises still shape our foreign policy towards Israel to this day.

We thought the Israelis were going to get into Desert Storm, but we were mushrooms of course at the time. (I was with the 82nd, at A Co. 2/325th).

[Webstral]

General Sir John Hackett suggests that USAEUR would largely be off-limits to Pact chemical weapons, since use of chemical weapons by both sides tends to slow battlefield progress. Hackett suggests that the US would make chemicals available to the European allies, who would use them against the Pact in retaliation. Pact use of chemical weapons would taper off as soon as forward momentum began to suffer.

There is a fair amount of logic to this. Soviet doctrine for the employment of chemicals involved using non-persistent agents on the defenders at the anticipated point(s) of breakthrough and persistent agents in adjacent areas. If NATO replied in kind by laying persistent agents in front of defended positions, the Soviet infantry would be forced to conduct dismounted attacks in chemical protective gear. Having done a couple of peacetime breaches of minefields in MOPP 4, I can say that I would prefer not to try to make a dismounted attack that way.

Use of chemicals against support troops and headquarters affects everyone, but throughout the Cold War everyone envisioned the Soviets being on the offensive. The attacker suffers disproportionately because he is relying on speed and momentum. How this would have played out in East Germany and Poland is another question.

Webstral

[Abbott Shaull]

General Sir John Hackett suggests that USAEUR would largely be off-limits to Pact chemical weapons, since use of chemical weapons by both sides tends to slow battlefield progress. Hackett suggests that the US would make chemicals available to the European allies, who would use them against the Pact in retaliation. Pact use of chemical weapons would taper off as soon as forward momentum began to suffer.

There is a fair amount of logic to this. Soviet doctrine for the employment of chemicals involved using non-persistent agents on the defenders at the anticipated point(s) of breakthrough and persistent agents in adjacent areas. If NATO replied in kind by laying persistent agents in front of defended positions, the Soviet infantry would be forced to conduct dismounted attacks in chemical protective gear. Having done a couple of peacetime breaches of minefields in MOPP 4, I can say that I would prefer not to try to make a dismounted attack that way.

Use of chemicals against support troops and headquarters affects everyone, but throughout the Cold War everyone envisioned the Soviets being on the offensive. The attacker suffers disproportionately because he is relying on speed and momentum. How this would have played out in East Germany and Poland is another question.

Webstral

Ironically NATO assumed the Soviets would be the one who attacked, while many in the PACT felt it was NATO who would attack first. Where as the Soviets were mainly sitting on the fence watching for a time to pick off the rest of Europe, again they also were watching too. If they felt NATO or any member was about to attack they were more than willing to launch preemptive strikes, but that another issue all together.

[Webstral]

The use of chemicals during the NATO drive across Poland also might help explain the apparent slowness of the Allied offensive.

Webstral

[HorseSoldier]

If NATO replied in kind by laying persistent agents in front of defended positions, the Soviet infantry would be forced to conduct dismounted attacks in chemical protective gear. Having done a couple of peacetime breaches of minefields in MOPP 4, I can say that I would prefer not to try to make a dismounted attack that way.

And I don't have any first hand experience with the Soviet and Warsaw Pact MOPP gear but in photos it looks a lot worse than Western stuff to have to work in, and on top of that it doesn't look like it provides the same level of protection and coverage. Much as I hate doing most anything at MOPP 4 in US kit, I'm certain it would be even worse in Russian/etc kit.

[pmulcahy11b]

And I don't have any first hand experience with the Soviet and Warsaw Pact MOPP gear but in photos it looks a lot worse than Western stuff to have to work in, and on top of that it doesn't look like it provides the same level of protection and coverage. Much as I hate doing most anything at MOPP 4 in US kit, I'm certain it would be even worse in Russian/etc kit.

I don't know what modern Russian MOPP gear is like, but we got a good look at the ones they were using in the 1980s one rotation I had at NTC. And...it's basically a rubber suit, sort of like wearing a wet suit, but not as breathable and looser in fit. It was basically a heat injury waiting to happen.

[Trooper]

And I don't have any first hand experience with the Soviet and Warsaw Pact MOPP gear but in photos it looks a lot worse than Western stuff to have to work in, and on top of that it doesn't look like it provides the same level of protection and coverage. Much as I hate doing most anything at MOPP 4 in US kit, I'm certain it would be even worse in Russian/etc kit.

I have once tried East-German MOPP suit. It was made of rubber- very cumbersome and hot gear. But it wasn"t a suit you will you use in battle. It was called heavy protective gear oe usually used only for NBC decontamination duties. NBC warning usually only ment that we should use gas mask, rain gear and wellington boots.

The soviet way of thinking was somewhat similar. Heavy MOPP suits were only for those whose served in chemical units (both defensive and offensive units). Or those men who should handle liquid rocket fuel or other toxic chemicals. Infantry, artillery and armor units would have using rain gear or light protective clothing oe which was nothing more than pair of good raincoat & pants. Soviet soldier was nothing more than slave in uniform. 10 % casualties in VX barrage would have been problem for day or two After all German theater of war was all about armored and mechanized warfare in soviet thinking Life span of soviet infantry man in armor unit was only two weeks in 1944 and 1945 and it wasnt a problem- why it should be problem in 1990s

Soviets were ready to use both chemical and biological weapons. They even had ICBM with bio warheads.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopreparat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novichok

[Abbott Shaull]

Soviets were in most cases would more than likely of been the first to use Chemical, Biological, or Nukes in war in Europe. Then again there to many what ifs to add up. I can see more reason why the Soviet would used these weapons for offensive or defensive purpose depending on the battle went. Especially if they found themselves on the defensive. As was pointed out before it could explain why the offensive into Poland went so slow. The use of the weapons, also I think and when NATO reach the the Vistula River, if they hadn't used nukes by this time they would of much the same way many feared that the French would if the Soviet had reach the Rhine River.

After those two it would be toss up between the US and French in who would use their Nukes to stop a Pact advance deep into Germany. Depends on if you buy into the plans by the US to blow certain autobahn exchanges to deny the Pact high speed avenues of approach or the French just want to slow them down so they could reinforce their defenses.

[Abbott Shaull]

Soviet Generals could care less if Regiment or two lose members because they followed too closely behind a conventional artillery barrage, so they will not lose any sleep if some units get taken out of action because they caught in the chemical/biological battlefield they created. Infantryman and even tanker can be replace eventually.

[HorseSoldier]

Soviets were ready to use both chemical and biological weapons. They even had ICBM with bio warheads.

Their bioweapons program was some purely terrifying lunacy. If they'd popped the Small Pox and bio-engineered, treatment resistant Plague and whatever else out of the bag the end state would probably be population density drifting below the level where the direction in the 21st century was back into living in caves and chipping flint rather than getting industrial society built back up.

[pmulcahy11b]

The blowback from biowarfare could be so severe that it could make what's left of the world unworthwhile. It would be sheer lunacy to do it. Which is why I think some terrorist might be willing to try it...