[Not the overall point of the poem, but] yet for all that, it turns out chemical weapons aren't even that useful: https://acoup.blog/2020/03/20/collections-why-dont-we-use-ch...

I was a CBRN NCO and this argument is not convincing. The author significantly underestimates the operational impact of chemical weapons on modern manoeuvre warfare and the cost of CBRN counter-measures.

CBRN defence imposes a substantial burden on modern militaries. Our infantry CBRN kit alone weighed 4.5kg, roughly the same weight as ten loaded 30-round STANAG magazines. That penalty applies to every soldier and similar burdens apply to vehicles, emplacements, heavy equipment. It increases fuel consumption, maintenance, logistics.

The training burden is also significant. In my experience nearly 8% of training time was dedicated to CBRN defence, more than marksmanship or signalling.

Operating under CBRN threat severely degrades ops tempo. Buttoning up slows movement, comms, situational awareness and command effectiveness. Speed and violence of action suffer and op tempo can drop by half or more. The impact on combat support and support units is worse than combat units. Naval and air forces fare worse again, with large decontamination requirements affecting sortie tempo, all external operations, and resupply. Even without casualties, the threat alone severely degrades manoeuvre warfare. They act as a force divisor.

The author reverses the logic. Modern militaries avoid chemical weapons for political reasons, not because they are ineffective. After WW1 they became politically toxic, and the Geneva Protocol has held because any state using them today would face immediate international condemnation and serious domestic political consequences.