Jump to content

Chemical Corps: Difference between revisions

m
Text replacement - "New York City" to "New York City"
m (Text replacement - "Korean War" to "Korean War")
m (Text replacement - "New York City" to "New York City")
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 32: Line 32:


===Origins===
===Origins===
Discussion of the topic dates back to the [[American Civil War]]. A letter to the [[United States Department of War|War Department]] dated 5 April 1862 from [[New York City]] resident John Doughty proposed the use of [[chlorine]] [[Shell (projectile)|shells]] to drive the [[Confederate Army]] from its positions. Doughty included a detailed drawing of the shell with his letter. It is unknown how the military reacted to Doughty's proposal but the letter was unnoticed in a pile of old official documents until modern times. Another American, [[Forrest Shepherd]], also proposed a chemical weapon attack against the [[Confederate States of America|Confederates]]. Shepherd's proposal involved [[hydrogen chloride]], an attack that would have likely been [[non-lethal]] but may have succeeded in driving enemy soldiers from their positions. Shepherd was a well-known geologist at the time and his proposal was in the form of a letter directly to the [[White House]].<ref name=miles>Miles, Wyndham. "The Idea of Chemical Warfare in Modern Times," ([https://www.jstor.org/stable/2708553 JSTOR]), ''Journal of the History of Ideas'', Vol. 31, No. 2. (Apr.–Jun., 1970), pp. 297–304. Retrieved 14 October 2007.</ref>
Discussion of the topic dates back to the American Civil War. A letter to the [[United States Department of War|War Department]] dated 5 April 1862 from New York City resident John Doughty proposed the use of [[chlorine]] [[Shell (projectile)|shells]] to drive the [[Confederate Army]] from its positions. Doughty included a detailed drawing of the shell with his letter. It is unknown how the military reacted to Doughty's proposal but the letter was unnoticed in a pile of old official documents until modern times. Another American, [[Forrest Shepherd]], also proposed a chemical weapon attack against the [[Confederate States of America|Confederates]]. Shepherd's proposal involved [[hydrogen chloride]], an attack that would have likely been [[non-lethal]] but may have succeeded in driving enemy soldiers from their positions. Shepherd was a well-known geologist at the time and his proposal was in the form of a letter directly to the [[White House]].<ref name=miles>Miles, Wyndham. "The Idea of Chemical Warfare in Modern Times," ([https://www.jstor.org/stable/2708553 JSTOR]), ''Journal of the History of Ideas'', Vol. 31, No. 2. (Apr.–Jun., 1970), pp. 297–304. Retrieved 14 October 2007.</ref>


===World War I===
===World War I===
Line 95: Line 95:
===Vietnam===
===Vietnam===
[[File:'Ranch Hand' run.jpg|thumb|right|A defoliant run during the Vietnam War, part of Operation Ranch Hand.]]
[[File:'Ranch Hand' run.jpg|thumb|right|A defoliant run during the Vietnam War, part of Operation Ranch Hand.]]
Beginning in 1962 during the [[Vietnam War]], the Chemical Corps operated a program that would become known as [[Operation Ranch Hand]]. Ranch Hand was a [[herbicidal warfare]] program which used [[herbicide]]s and [[defoliants]] such as [[Agent Orange]].<ref name=neilands>Neilands, J. B. "Vietnam: Progress of the Chemical War," ([https://www.jstor.org/stable/2642575 JSTOR]), ''Asian Survey'', Vol. 10, No. 3. (Mar., 1970), pp. 209–229. Retrieved 14 October 2007.</ref> The chemicals were color-coded based on what compound they contained. The U.S. and its allies officially argued that herbicides and defoliants fell outside the definition of "chemical weapons", since these substances were not designed to [[asphyxiate]] or [[poison]] humans, but to destroy plants which provided cover or concealment to the enemy.  
Beginning in 1962 during the Vietnam War, the Chemical Corps operated a program that would become known as [[Operation Ranch Hand]]. Ranch Hand was a [[herbicidal warfare]] program which used [[herbicide]]s and [[defoliants]] such as [[Agent Orange]].<ref name=neilands>Neilands, J. B. "Vietnam: Progress of the Chemical War," ([https://www.jstor.org/stable/2642575 JSTOR]), ''Asian Survey'', Vol. 10, No. 3. (Mar., 1970), pp. 209–229. Retrieved 14 October 2007.</ref> The chemicals were color-coded based on what compound they contained. The U.S. and its allies officially argued that herbicides and defoliants fell outside the definition of "chemical weapons", since these substances were not designed to [[asphyxiate]] or [[poison]] humans, but to destroy plants which provided cover or concealment to the enemy.  


The Chemical Corps continued to support U.S. forces through the use of [[incendiary weapons]], such as [[napalm]], and [[riot control]] measures, among other missions. As the war progressed into the late 1960s, public sentiment against the Chemical Corps increased because of the Army's continued use of herbicides, criticized in the press as being against the Geneva Protocol; napalm; and riot control agents.<ref name="mauroni" />
The Chemical Corps continued to support U.S. forces through the use of [[incendiary weapons]], such as [[napalm]], and [[riot control]] measures, among other missions. As the war progressed into the late 1960s, public sentiment against the Chemical Corps increased because of the Army's continued use of herbicides, criticized in the press as being against the Geneva Protocol; napalm; and riot control agents.<ref name="mauroni" />