Titlebook: Chemical Warfare; Edward M. Spiers Book 1986 Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Limited 1986 compliance.conflict.confl

帐簿

书目名称Chemical Warfare影响因子(影响力)




书目名称Chemical Warfare影响因子(影响力)学科排名




书目名称Chemical Warfare网络公开度




书目名称Chemical Warfare网络公开度学科排名




书目名称Chemical Warfare被引频次




书目名称Chemical Warfare被引频次学科排名




书目名称Chemical Warfare年度引用




书目名称Chemical Warfare年度引用学科排名




书目名称Chemical Warfare读者反馈




书目名称Chemical Warfare读者反馈学科排名

战胜

,Chemical Warfare 1914–18,0 000 million rounds of small arms ammunition, this was a fairly small total. But gas was a new weapon. Once introduced on a significant scale (3870 tons) in 1915, it was employed in increasing quantities thereafter (16 535 tons in 1916,38 635 tons in 1917 and 65 160 tons in 1918).. New and more pot

易于

细胞学

,Avoiding Chemical Warfare 1939–45,oyed in an increasingly extensive fashion during the later years of the Great War, and, despite the signing of the Geneva Protocol, poison gas still seemed a potent weapon, especially in view of its use in Ethiopia and its reported use by the Japanese in China. The great powers prepared for the wors

阴谋

Gas and Third World Conflicts,orld War. From the inter-war period there had been reports, which varied considerably in their degrees of accuracy, about the employment of gas in small colonial conflicts.. Gas was used in Abyssinia and China and would be used again in post-war encounters, notably in Vietnam and allegedly in the Ye

inculpate

inculpate

archenemy

The Geneva Negotiations: Problems and Prospects,, international gatherings have sought to proscribe the military use of poisonous and asphyxiating weapons (the Brussels Convention of 1874 and the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907). On 17 June 1925 twenty-eight states signed the Geneva Protocol, prohibiting the use in war of asphyxiating, p

小故事

察觉

Esteban C. Buljevich,Yoon S. Park are viewed, the frustration aroused by the failure to ban them, and the difficulty of assessing their current importance. Although chemical weapons have occasionally been promoted as intrinsically no more heinous than conventional weapons,. they have generally been viewed as particularly odious. Ch