The Debate
Immediately following the war, pressure increased to prohibit the use of chemical weapons. Undoubtedly the mass slaughter and extraordinary violence of trench warfare took its toll on the public. With casualty rates in excess of anything in human history due mainly to a combination of 19th-century tactics and 20th-century weaponry, pressure intensified to mitigate warfare by international treaty. Newspapers, images, and returning veterans all reminded people of the costs of war and the especially gruesome effects of chemical weapons such as severe pain, nausea, vomiting, and tissue damage to include extreme burning, swelling, blistering, and discharge from the mucous membranes.
Despite the war fatigue experienced by many after the Great War, and the call for a general military disarmament, when it came to chemical warfare the path forward was anything but straightforward. Publicly, at least in Great Britain and the United States, some groupsadvocated for continued development and use of chemical weapons while others argued for an international chemical warfare ban.
In general, those in favor of further developing chemical weapons held various beliefs. Among the most popular proponent arguments were that (1) treaties banning the use of weapons already employed in war were worthless because, as was proven by Germany’s violation of the 1899 and 1907 Hague agreements, belligerent nations would simply ignore international accords if militarily advantageous, making future use of chemical weapons inevitable; (2) efforts to regulate chemical weapons production were unenforceable because any nation with a peaceful domestic chemical production industry could easily convert to weapons production in a short period of time; (3) due to the minor number of deaths caused by chemical weapons in the Great War and the defense against gas (mainly protective masks), these munitions were less harmful and more defensible than conventional weapons and therefore were actually more humane than bullets, bombs, artillery, and bayonets; and, (4) all new weapons, when introduced to the battlefield, only appear more dastardly because of their novelty.
Arguing for the abolition or international regulation of chemical weapons, anti-gas activists tended to focus on the horrifying possibilities of chemical warfare in the future. Representative of the principles of the majority of opponents of chemical weapons, a distinguished group of British medical professionals called for the abolition of chemical warfare based on three main reasons:
1) It is an uncontrollable weapon, whose effects cannot be limited to combatants.
2) It is an “unclean” weapon, condemning its victims to death by long, drawn-out torture, and,
3) It opens the door to infinite possibilities of causing suffering and death, for its further development may well lead to the devising of an agent which will blot out towns, and even nations.
The third objection, the belief that eventually a weapon capable of destroying towns and nations will be developed, fueled much of the public fear over chemical weapons. It was one of the strongest arguments that advocates for chemical weapons faced.