Regarding the chemical weapons thing: I read once (I believe from Bret Devereaux at ACOUP -- who is a military historian, but not of the relevant time period) that many nations' being signed onto the Convention is somewhat of an empty gesture because, for those signatories, chemical weapons are usually not tactically or strategically valuable -- the fact that the damage is indiscriminate and spread around by wind makes them incompatible with fast, mobile, combined arms warfare (you might use them and then run your advancing army into them), which is basically standard doctrine for all the powerful militaries in the world today. So there are only a very few instances where using them might make sense from an amoral military perspective anyway -- such as when you lack an adequate standing army and your enemy is far away -- that the most influential signatories are very unlikely to ever find themselves in. (Then, of course, those signatories can incentivize signing on even for states like Assadist Syria that may have greater use for them in moments of crisis.) So I would be a bit more skeptical that the Convention solves the problem you're talking about there in the way you suggest.
Anyway, just thought this bit of trivia may be interesting!
Ah, that’s interesting, and I do appreciate the information. So maybe not the best example to illustrate the point. Fair enough, and thanks. (For what it’s worth, I have found my reading in military history very rewarding. I haven’t done as much as I would like, but I think people underestimate how many insights about human nature are to be gained by studying human group conflicts over the course of history.)
I have used Tinder quite extensively for several years and indeed double-booked any time I had the chance, though I'm not aware of others who did the same. Not even once I had both women show up, forcing me to flake on one of them.
Not presenting this as a data point. Just sharing something to have a sad laugh about.
Regarding the chemical weapons thing: I read once (I believe from Bret Devereaux at ACOUP -- who is a military historian, but not of the relevant time period) that many nations' being signed onto the Convention is somewhat of an empty gesture because, for those signatories, chemical weapons are usually not tactically or strategically valuable -- the fact that the damage is indiscriminate and spread around by wind makes them incompatible with fast, mobile, combined arms warfare (you might use them and then run your advancing army into them), which is basically standard doctrine for all the powerful militaries in the world today. So there are only a very few instances where using them might make sense from an amoral military perspective anyway -- such as when you lack an adequate standing army and your enemy is far away -- that the most influential signatories are very unlikely to ever find themselves in. (Then, of course, those signatories can incentivize signing on even for states like Assadist Syria that may have greater use for them in moments of crisis.) So I would be a bit more skeptical that the Convention solves the problem you're talking about there in the way you suggest.
Anyway, just thought this bit of trivia may be interesting!
Ah, that’s interesting, and I do appreciate the information. So maybe not the best example to illustrate the point. Fair enough, and thanks. (For what it’s worth, I have found my reading in military history very rewarding. I haven’t done as much as I would like, but I think people underestimate how many insights about human nature are to be gained by studying human group conflicts over the course of history.)
I have used Tinder quite extensively for several years and indeed double-booked any time I had the chance, though I'm not aware of others who did the same. Not even once I had both women show up, forcing me to flake on one of them.
Not presenting this as a data point. Just sharing something to have a sad laugh about.