GAS WARFARE

Evening Post, Issue 28, 1 August 1936, Page 8

GAS WARFARE

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Wednesday's "Evening . Post" gives a report of a lecture' entitled 'Gas, the Weapon of the Future," delivered at Victoria College on the preceding night. The lecturer is reported as saying: "Gas warfare is now commonly regarded by experts as being humane." ' Clearly, the word "humane" means for the speaker something very different from what it means for most people. The Oxford Dictionary gives "benevolent," "compassionate." ■ , The lecturer gave a classification of the various gases, which included:— Those attacking the lungs, causing choking; sneezing and coughing gases, meant to penetrate the gas-mask, causing it to be discarded; blistering gases, such as mustard gas, attacking the' skin, eyes, and lungs, and sometimes the digestion and nerves; paralysants, poisoning the nervous system; and gases interfering with the function of the blood. , Speaking of the protection given by gas-masks, the .lecturer said it depended largely on the type of mask and the gas used. "With mustard gas, for instance, an oiled silk suit from top to bottom, and gumboots was said to give protection for some two arid a hall hours." Judging by the lecturer's own description, gas warfare does not sound exactly "benevolent" or "compassionate. It may or may not be lass brutal than other forms of warfare, but it certainly cannot be described as humane."—l am, etc., . D. J. DONALD. _ [The context indicates that the lecturer used the word "humane" in a comparative sense, stating that gas was not less humane than the use against a city of high explosive' or thermite bombs.]