Why nerve gas really isnt as deadly as you think!
Why nerve gas really isnt as deadly as you think

Follow by Email
Japan recently executed the mastermind of the tokyo subway attacks. Its maybe a pertinent time to take a look at how deadly nerve agents are in the hands of a terrorist. The key fact that the tokyo subway attacks took expect chemists, 10 attackers and in the end only killed about 10 people, compared to say the Columbine shooters who by killed a comparable number of people with no particular skill or training. to support this channel: https://www.patreon.com/Thunderf00t or visit my amazon store: https://www.amazon.com/shop/thunderf00t


69696 subscribers with no videos challenge : Enemy uses sarin Thunderf00t uses tissues *its extremely effective*

Spencer Scott : Started watching a video about nerve gas, ended up watching a video about gun control lmao

Not Pulverman : Being on a military base doesnt mean people have guns. It means NO ONE has guns except security personnel.

Tristan Seaver : "You can't make 10 tons of nerve agent in your kitchen." Is that a challenge?

mariusvanc : That US military comparison vs guns is dumb. By the same logic, the French resistance had no chance against the heavy machinery of occupying Germany, and should have just given up. You can't carpet bomb your entire country. Vietnam won the war, EVEN THOUGH US tried doing exactly that, carpet bomb the entire country. "Boots on the ground" are just that: normal people, as vulnerable to a lethal dose of lead as any other person, and long and thinly guarded supply lines.

TheAngryPolack 97 : Soldiers aren't allowed to carry weapons when stationed at a military base.

Christian Wahl : "Like the idea that small arms ownership will somehow stack up to overthrowing a corrupt government" That's why soldiers aren't sworn to the government. They're sworn to the constitution. If the government turns on the people, the military will become divided between loyalty to government and loyalty to their oaths. In the US, you shouldn't underestimate the power of an oath. So at least a sizable portion of that military force will cancel out against government loyalists. This means that the armed civilians now have a much more significant force against the government corruption. That said, I'm Canadian. I don't own a gun to fight against the Canadian Forces (from which I am a veteran). Though I could and would, I own a gun for the protection of my family. My rifle protects them from home invasion and from animal attack.

DrRocketman 779 : The Japanese doomsday cult had impure sarin, and it had significantly degraded by the time they employed it. In addition, they simply put it in a plastic bag and spilled it...if they had taped a firecracker to the bag (a lame attempt to aerosolize it) the casualty rate would have been much higher. [War of Nerves, Jonathan B. Tucker, 2006]

Loli4lyf : Title : nerve gas Content : WWII ammunition Good job thunderf00t

Riley Powell : Oh hey yeah when was the last time a largely civilian force comparatively untrained and outgunned stood up to the full force of the United Nations military. You know besides every conflict for the last 25 years

Sergio Suarez : "10 people died on a MILITARY BASE HOW!? A MILITARY BASE!!" No one walks around with armed guns but a couple MPs. Dumb point.

David Vazquez : A couple of problems with the video: 1) A common misconception many civilians have is that everyone on a military base is armed. Quite the contrary. As a Marine, I was not allowed to possess or store my own firearms on my person or in my quarters. Furthermore, the vast majority of military members, while stationed in the US, are not armed. In fact we weren't even allowed to possess fire-able weapons in bootcamp (other than at the range). So really, a military base is a "sure thing" for a terrorist shooter, in that he can be reasonably confident that no one will be armed there. 2) Schools are not really a good indicator that the "if only someone were armed" argument is false, for basically the same reason as above-- that the shooter is reasonably sure that no one at all inside a school will be armed. As for "surprise" being a factor-- sure, even Marines are "surprised" in combat, as are police officers, but that's no reason to disarm them. And, once they have their head in the game and are no longer "surprised", trained armed people invariably win the day (i.e. police officers).

Trygve Plaustrum : Finally, a video that tells the audience that they're *safer* than they expect.

Adenosine Overdose : A way to effectively disperse liquid? Why didn't they use super soakers?

Austin Plumly : the "standing up to the armed forces" argument is beta and bunk. look at the Vietcong... they did it. Did it ever occur to you that maybe a corrupt government would take measures to disarm the populace before going full oppression mode?

Twice : No matter you have a strong military or not, the people will always be in extreme superior numbers and we've legitimate proof from last civ wars. Also, why the military would be against the people if most soldiers like the freedom of having a gun? The military follows the constitution, not their political leaders.

ShadowRaven ʘ益ʘ : I use mustard gas. ITS SUPER EFFECTIVE!

Bryan Correll : The effectiveness of a terror attack isn't a matter of body count, it's in the psychological effect on the wider population.

fi rty : bad vid bad research almost like you've got an agenda - timothy mcveigh killed 168 people with 1 bomb. Now your whole videos point is worthless.

Magnificent Golden Beast : Puerto Rico recently updated the number of deaths from 2017's hurricane Maria. They originally said it was about 64 deaths. Many months later they said it was over 1,000. This month, September 2018, they say it is officially 2,995 deaths from the hurricane. This throws into doubt the number of deaths from each type of weapon as described by Thunderfoot. The number of immediate deaths from a hurricane can be small -- 64. Then when you look at the number of heart attacks that weren't saved because of closed roads or no phone service a couple weeks later, you can add those in. Other deaths tangential to the hurricane can be added in and those can be questionable but they legitimately can be considered death from the hurricane. When looking at the death from any types of weapons and how expensive it is to kill one soldier, that should be expanded to include the tangential deaths. If you bomb a bridge guarded by three soldiers, you may kill one soldier. That bridge leads to a hospital and that denies soldiers and civilians access to medical care. Fifteen medical personnel may leave the area and and 15 civilian patients die from lack of medical care. Even some soldiers die from lack of care. Taking out power, sanitation, water and communication infrastructure for a city will lead to many deaths over a period of time. A couple of bombs can kill thousands this way. I have heard the figure of 800K deaths from embargo in Iraq under sanctions between 1990 and 2003. I have also read of 25K murders in Baghdad for several months immediately after Saddam was deposed. Should these deaths and injuries be included in the deaths per bomb, soldier, bullet, etc.?

The Squiggy : We've got some data on the usefulness of small arms being employed against superpower militaries. Maybe do a video exploring the success rate of modern mechanized military against an embedded guerilla force indistinguishable from the civilian population? Further on this point, how exactly do you think that military occupations work? When the occupied get uppity does the occupier just level the area with air strikes? Or does it takes boots on the ground ( which might be susceptible to small arms fire ) to both ensure the security of the resources and the larger military infrastructure?

John Rokam : bs, in vegas shooter was practically in bunkier and at night. in street/shoop scenarios guns in citizen hands save many lives

kiddiescripterkiller : Being on a military base unless in a war zone is irrelevant... The only ones running around with guns are the military police... At least that was the case when I was in the military... And to your point where armed citizens fighting against an oppressive government... The Ukraine vs Russia... They seem to be hanging on... They haven't been crushed... Hoping for help... Plus as far as mass shootings are concerned... There was only one before they passed the the law in 1965... throwing the mentally ill out of hospitals to save money and the states making it harder to get people committed... Half way into this story talks about it. https://aretheythinking.com/shooting-at-youtube-hq/

Gewel ✔ : Mass of ammunition includes tank and artillery shells

John Nelsestuen : I was gonna say a gas attack in an underground subway station would go bad quickly

A Part of a Mountain : Sounds like something nerve gas would say

Jason Astere : This is an extremely disengenuine video the part about the Fort Hood shooting didn't even mention that on bases everyone is stripped of their weapons.

h2s : Military bases are typically poorly defended within the boundaries,, 22 year military member

MegaGouch : Privately owned guns aren't enough to over throw a corrupt government or fight a full armed military? Sure, other than the Mujahideen, Taliban, Al Qaeda, French Resistance, IRA and countless other Guerilla groups that have worked successfully over the last millennia.

Janglenutter : 1. Sarin isn't that effective of a nerve agent. 2. It wasn't properly dispersed. They didn't properly get it out in the air. I'm not sure where your information was sourced, mine was sourced from real world experience with actual nerve agents at the CDTF in Fort Leonard Wood Missouri.

Nerd City : I’ve seen one fart wreck 10 people. So potentially 500,000 people might smell a single fart?

Prjndigo : I doubt your WW2 comparison includes civilian death...

Striker : They are not deadly by actual conditions . But they are hella scary.

Seth Clemence : What about the Oklahoma City bombing? It kill 168 people it was committed by one person as well

Luc Fauvarque : The main reason why guns are exceptional force amplifiers in civilian areas isn't just because of a lack of guns at hands of the victims to retaliate. It is also due to the fact that bulletproof armours are much more expensive and restricted than guns themselves. Defence has always been more expensive than the actual force projection system it's designed to counter.

boag : If we werent in an FBI or NSA list before, we are now!

Ryan R : Thunderfoot I have to respectfully disagree with small arms are in affective against a huge military. Look at the Mujahideen vs the Russians they had bolt action weapons from ww2 vs one of the most technology advanced militaries of the time, and brought them to there knees. A insurgent population only has to slowly chip away at a huge military over a long period of time and it will inevitably crumble.

Archaeopteryx128 : Interesting, up to the point when it went off on an anti-gun tirade.

IG2212 : It's more about people government, laws and culture, if you add other variables, you have countries that have extremely high gun control laws but yet has very high gun deaths/murders like Brazil, and you also have countries with extremely lenient laws and widespread access to guns, like switzerland and yet gun deaths/muders are close to 0

john wick : How the hell do you go from nerve gas to guns in seconds all i thout this video would be about was nerve gas but you just had to bring in guns

TheTayz : Gonna call you on your Fort Hood shooting comparison bunk. Soldiers on the base aren't allowed to carry guns all the time so you can't pretend like it was the ideal scenario in which "good guys with guns" should've been able to intervene. No, they were forced to cower and die while waiting for the military police to respond. Soldiers' weapons are always locked up in the armory when not being used for training, and ammo is not even stored in the same area as the weapons. Then the typical "but muh U.S. military cannot be opposed" shtick. Haven't you seen the effects of any insurgency within the last 70 years or so? Like when the Russians got defeated in Afghanistan basically by a bunch of religious shepherds and mountain men, who've continued to prove difficult to root out in Afghanistan for combined NATO forces as well in more recent years. How about the events in Syria where almost exactly that: ragtag civilians -turned-militia, have managed to give the Syrian + Russian combined forces hell for over 5 years so far. Not to mention the Vietnam war, etc. etc. I think it's disingenuous to pretend like these events are completely unrealistic. And that's not considering the fact that many in the military could defect or refuse to attack civilians. There is a certain death toll ranging into the tens of millions in the past century of people who've been completely defenseless at the mercy of their corrupt and heinous governments which I find much more compelling than worrying about a terror attack.

Skull Explosion : This video is 20% sarin bad and 80% guns are bad. You do know the FBI has stats that show the number of people saved by lawful use of firearms right?

Brandon Hoffman : Your videos have perked my interest. I have watched about 5 of your videos in a single stint and am left wanting more. You sir have made another subscriber! Loved the video on your trip here to the states, you even snagged some Manhattan level uranium! Checked out a volcano's caldera, found sulfur in the mountains, got a time-lapse of LA, debunked west coast radiation from Fukushima. You just might be "the most interesting man in the world" which leaves me wondering. what's your beer of choice! Go take a vacation sometime in the near future. You deserve it, and we the people will await your return. It makes me sad that youtubers feel they need to constantly release videos and not take personal time. Besides if you film your adventure then its a win, win scenario.

Celtic704 : @Thunderf00t you should talk about VX that stuff doesn't go away like sarin

Newsish : You can pry my hamburger from cold, dead, fat hands.

alvaro 248 : i aint falling on yo trap,you damn SS officer

CK's channel. : "You only have to look at Las Vegas to see what guns in the hands of a determined and capable man can do..." Barring all the crazy conspiracy theories out there, Paddock's weapon list was laughable at best; almost all of the bump-fire weapons present lacked sights. The weapons allegedly fired lacked sights, some lacked bump stocks (conspiracy, etc). Paddock (allegedly) was just in the right place at the right time; the area was HEAVILY target-rich (some 20,000 people huddled together, mostly asshole-to-elbow, etc), very preoccupied, had almost no actual cover, etc. etc. etc.... By chance alone, he killed 58 and injured 800 (allegedly, because it was never released how many were gunshot victims and how many were trampling/crowd victims), etc... By chance... He could've run the weapon blindfolded and still had about the same amount of hits... Had he used controlled, aimed single shots, the death toll would've been staggering. Vegas is a very peculiar case indeed, but if Paddock was indeed the lone gunman, he most assuredly was NOT capable in either sense of the word (either skill-wise or gear-wise)...

Jimmy Cincinnati : 50 more people ended up dying as a result of the gas attack. The occultists also acquired guns. They attacked the police with them. Of course, the police were unarmed.

Balázs Molnár : I respected your work so far, but even until to 2:00 you made so many mistakes that I cannot count them. You make totally wrong way "statistics"... Maybe you can check how few chem was used by saddam hussein to kill civilians and not in a subway... Just because some noob terrorist luckly had bad performance such a "nerve gas" which is not even gas on environmental temp it does not mean chemical weapons are not as dangerous. In fact many military and political leader were more afraid from chemical warfare than nuclear warfare because it is much easier to protect personnal against a very short period of blast and drive away from local fallout than many times long lasting sticky remains of chem. weapons.