Originally posted by MacGregor
I don't know about your assumption that the US was the "only country to have planned extensively for it." Given the horrors of WWI, I doubt that any of the major combatants failed to "extensively plan" for the use of chemical weapons in the event the other side used it. I have nothing to back this up but it is just a reasonable (at least I think so) assumption.
I would hardly classify the Chem Corps as being on "an equal footing with infantry, artillery, etc." Most Chem Corp units were attached to Infantry Divisions and as their artillery was compatible with conventional munitions, they were de facto used soley in that role. Its not like they had a hundred thousand soldiers whose sole responsibility was to deliver chemical weapons. It was more like they had a hundred thousand soldiers who acted as conventional artellirists but who were trained in the use of Chem weapons if called upon. Again, I imagine that all major combatants had such forces.
Let me start by stating that I'm not passing moral judgment on the US army. I do not see chemical weapons as particularly immoral or inhumane. Shell fragments or even bullets can inflict extremely slow, painful and gory death and they're accepted as "human" ways to kill.
This said, the primary mission of the US chemical corps WAS chemical warfare. Its 107mm mortar was specifically designed to fire gas shells - even if it could also fire HE if needed.
Of course, since the US army didn't use chemical weapons in WWII, they never performed their intended mission, and since it would have been a waste of trained manpower and equipment not to use them, they were used as regular mortar troops, if a bit heavy on the smoke-laying side of the job.
Even if it is quite true that every major country had huge stocks of chemicals, the US was the only one with a service dedicated to chemical warfare. In all other armies there were of course chemical warfare specialists, but that duty usually devolved to the engineers and the artillery, if not the medical service.
In other words, the US army was probably the best prepared to wage chemical warfare, and the only one to posess a service which would have it as its primary mission, and thus would be encouraged to formulate plans for it.
It is therefore quite natural that references regularly crop up of suggestions to use chemical weapons in US planning: the US army had officers whose very job it was to make such suggestions.
This can probably be linked to the very special experience of WWI the US army had.
Until the summer of 1917, chemical weapons were used only sporadically. From then on, however, the Germans made increasing use of them, to the point where by Spring, 1918 (when the AEF started active operations) 30-40% of the shells they fired were gas shells.
All the other armies fought for three years in an environment where chemical warfare was a marginal - albeit potentially very dangerous - factor.
The US army that fought WWII really originated from the AEF of 1917-18, and the AEF was born in a tactical environment were chemical weapons were everyday's reality and a very important factor.
So it is little surprising that it decided to fight the next war with an organization adapted to that tactical environment.
Yes, the US army was quite unique in this regard. In other armies, should chemical weapons be used again, well, it would just be shells with different markings to fire for gunners.
Regarding the Strategypage article, I agree with you that it isn't at all clear on the matter of wether or not the use of chemical weapons had been cleared by the President.
But I have no doubt at all that had such use been cleared, detailed plans would have been already available to implement it.
). 
