world distribution of industrial organic chemical forces.
Unless some readjustment occurs, this will remain the "point faible"
in world disarmament. We, therefore, propose to examine the relationships
between chemical industry, war, and disarmament.

Some Preliminary Explanation.--The chemistry of war, developed under
the stress of the poison gas campaign, is of absorbing chemical
and technical interest, but it has none the less a general appeal.
When its apparently disconnected and formidable facts are revealed
as an essential part of a tense struggle in which move and counter-move
followed swiftly one upon the other, its appeal becomes much wider.
Therefore, in order not to confuse the main issue in the following
chapters by entering upon tiresome definitions, it is proposed to conclude
the present chapter by explaining, simply, a number of chemical warfare
conceptions with which the expert is probably well acquainted.

"Poison Gas" a Misleading Term--Poison gas is a misleading term, and.
our subject is much better described as "chemical, warfare."
Let us substantiate this by examining briefly the types of chemicals
which were used. In the first place they were not all gases;
the tendency during the war was towards the use of liquids and solids.
Even the chemicals which appeared as gases on the field of battle
were transported and projected as liquids, produced by compression.
As the poison war developed, a large number of different
chemicals became available for use by the opposing armies.
These can he classified, either according to their tactical use,
or according to their physiological effects on man.

The British, French, American, and German armies all tended to the final
adoption of a tactical classification, but the French emphasised