Talk:chemical warfare

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

chemical warfare

Where do these come from? It's chemical + warfare. But then, on the other hand, we seem to have biological warfare, conventional warfare, psychological warfare, possibly others. But for some reason nuclear warfare still awaits its creator. Who wants to score a point? --Hekaheka (talk) 10:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it really that obvious what it means? But then you could have chemical attack and chemical war as well. Chemical doesn't seem to cover this as it happens, but likely it should. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep all. Is it "chemical warfare" to drop explosive bombs on the enemy, since explosives generally rely on chemical reactions? Is it biological warfare to send a wave of troops to attack an enemy, since humans are a product of biology? One might reasonably think that "biological warfare" is merely the alternative to "mechanical warfare" or "robot warfare" (which is fast becoming a reality with drone strikes). bd2412 T 12:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it "chemical warfare" to drop explosive bombs on the enemy, since explosives generally rely on chemical reactions? --According to our current definition of chemical warfare, yes. Explosives are harmful chemical substances par excellence. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Then our definition is wrong, at least according to the Wikipedia article on chemical warfare, which specifies: "Chemical warfare is different from the use of conventional weapons or nuclear weapons because the destructive effects of chemical weapons are not primarily due to any explosive force". bd2412 T 15:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have expanded the definition of chemical warfare to specify that it refers to intentional toxic exposure, and not any of the thousands of other ways that chemicals are used in warfare. bd2412 T 15:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I created nuclear warfare because it explicitly refers to nuclear weapons, not to any other nuclear substances like depleted uranium rounds. -- Liliana • 15:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The meaning is more specific than the expected SOP “the use of chemicals in warfare”. The definition has been improved, and this is more clear now. — Ungoliant ^(Falai) 16:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep per bd2412. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Outcome: RFD kept per consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2013 (UTC)