[ChalkLine]

Chemical Warfare

While the Rool-Of-Cool states the GM can use anything anywhere, T2k has always had a strong grounding in some realities about where or why things appear in the campaign. Chemical warfare, one of the most feared things that exist in the game, is not usually looked into simply because it is so feared. However, let's have look at why and where it's deployed.
Basically, chemical warfare is simply a tool in the military toolbox. Once approval has been granted for release the OPFOR or Allied commander will look at the battle-space and see if chemical weapons have the ability to act as a force multiplier and what the effects will be. They don't simply soak the battleground in chemicals.

Chemical weapons are one of a class that have effects on both sides, and as such aren't applicable to many situations. As many of the posters here have over the years have made accounts of the terrible conditions that chemical warfare countermeasures inflict on the combat personnel and their large negative effects on combat capability - especially combat endurance - it becomes obvious that chemicals have a fairly niche application.

As everyone here knows, there's essentially three sorts of of chemical weapon:
- Nerve Agents
- Blister Agents
- Choking Agents

Nerve Agents promise fast disabling of enemy forces but also heavily contaminate the battlefield. Thirty years after the end of the Cold War we can actually admit that the USSR did actually see the Poles as allies, and as such weren't in a big hurry to contaminate Poland wholesale for many practical reasons. Nerve agent release also limits the enemy from manoeuvring in the contaminated area as all nerve agents are very persistent and also have very damaging long-term contamination that may make the battleground impassable for years to come. As such important choke points and other strategic areas should never be attacked with nerve agents. Also areas that have water run-off towards strategic areas should also be avoided, especially if that run-off flows back into your own territory. Prevailing winds, which in the European plain blows mainly west, should be taken into account when looking at nerve agent deployment. This means Warsaw Pact deployment of nerve agents are more likely to blow into enemy territory than NATO deployments. However NATO long range deployments might be used to attack rear-areas without an accompanying ground attack. These attacks would be invariably area-denial in nature so players could expect them to be well-marked by Warsaw Pact forces by the time they got to them - assuming there was any local survivors.

Nerve agents, like biological and nuclear weapons, are the best way of limiting player movement into areas where the campaign simply doesn't go.

Blister Agents are less persistent in most cases, but this is relative. Stormwater runoff can become heavily contaminated and cause significant injuries on contact if the blister agent has had a heavy release. Blister agents re seen by militaries as more-easily countered and so have been kept in store alongside more effective nerve agents because friendly troops can manoeuvre through contaminated areas with less losses. Blister agents are used, like artillery, against set positions and less as area-denial. Blister agents are a serious threat to players and the GM should think long and hard on how blister agent attacks should be made on characters. I personally thing they should be encountered more as an NPC-on-NPC attack to allow the players to experience them but to be well prepared.
Blister agents are, in my opinion, at the upper limit of destructive power a GM should allow players. It should be noted that civilians are almost never protected against blister or nerve agents and collateral damage of this sort of release will be high in civilian populations, especially among the vulnerable.

Choking agents are commonly deployed by even very advanced governments on their own citizens. Choking agents have little persistence except in very high concentrations and rapidly degrade, but that doesn't mean that they're harmless. In Viet Nam the USA deployed choking agents as area denial in OPFOR tunnel complexes in concentrations that were lethal. However choking agents are easily countered if a group is prepared and make a good tactical complication in T2k combat. Choking agents are also far less restricted in use than nerve or blister agents and can be encountered far further down the command chain than the other agents that are usually restricted to the divisional level or release. They have a heavy effect when used by surprise on unaware or resting troops. Long term use on set positions can make those positions untenable, and both players and NPCs may resort to 'smoking out' well-entrenched units with these agents deployed over long periods.

Persistence.
The major aspect the players will encounter with chemical agents is their persistent nature and the contamination of the campaign area.
As noted above, water runoff is a prime area of contamination, as is the interior of areas not exposed to the weather. Some of the more persistent agents such as the nerve agent VX 'stick' to the underside of surfaces and can make contaminated areas instantly lethal for long and varying periods after deployment. The interior of structures used as shelter and defensive positions, abandoned vehicles and public structures can all be contaminated by chemical agents and the GM should give this some thought when designing a new area. Small spaces such as utility sheds that are rarely opened are especially prone to contamination. Another danger is the repair and use of utilities such as water and air services that may flush out contamination. To be fair a GM should have this happen to NPCs before inflicting it on players so the players can develop some survival skills regarding this aspect.

Anyone want to chime in?
How about storing chemical weapons and decontamination?