Expert Analysis

Your Beard Won’t Stop Sarin Gas: Survival Belongs to the Soldier Who Shaves

BY Reader Submission

Facial hair has long been associated with military leadership and rugged masculinity. However, in the context of modern chemical warfare, beards pose a direct threat to survivability. This article refutes the romanticized notion of the “warrior beard” by grounding the discussion in historical precedent, NBC doctrine, and current military policy. From WWI trench hygiene to banana oil testing in Cold War civil defense, through the destruction of legacy chemical stockpiles at Dugway and Tooele, and now to mandated seal checks in 2025, the evidence is clear: seal integrity is life, and that seal begins with a clean-shaven face.

American soldiers during World War I participate in a simulated chemical attack exercise. Image Credit: Encyclopedia Britannica

By: Hansel Rayner, PA-C

Advertisement

Introduction 

Military culture has long celebrated the beard. From General Ulysses S. Grant, whose stoic leadership helped preserve the Union, to Chesty Puller, the embodiment of Marine grit, facial hair has often been seen as a symbol of martial prowess and rugged command. In many eras, the beard was more than style—it was identity.

Up until the 1990s, chemical warfare was considered an expected threat. Cold War doctrine, NBC training, and battlefield planning all assumed that chemical agents—from blistering mustard gas to nerve agents—could be deployed by near-peer adversaries or rogue states. Troops trained accordingly: clean-shaven faces, daily seal checks, and banana oil testing were standard survivability protocols.

During this time, the author was in private medical practice in Tooele, Utah, adjacent to Dugway Proving Ground and the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility. As one of the medical professionals tasked with supporting the local hospital, he assisted in readiness protocols and response planning for potential chemical exposures among staff involved in the destruction of legacy chemical weapons. This firsthand experience reinforced the operational reality that chemical survivability is not theoretical—it’s procedural, personal, and immediate.

Advertisement

But over the last 25 years, the nature of our adversaries shifted. Asymmetric warfare, counterinsurgency operations, and tribal engagements dominated the battlefield. Chemical threats seemed distant. Beards returned as a symbol of strength, especially among special operations forces and combat and civil action forces operating in regions where facial hair carried cultural weight. The clean-shaven Military standard was increasingly viewed as outdated and unnecessary.

Now, the battlefield has changed again.

Advertisement

With the documented resurgence of chemical weapons in Ukraine [3–5], the operational threat posed by North Korea’s rocket-deployed agents [6], and the Secretary of War’s recent directive mandating chemical readiness training [8], the clean-shaven face is no longer a matter of tradition. It’s a matter of operational and literal survival.

WWI: From Bearded Valor to Chemical Reality 

At the outset of World War I, both the French and British armies embraced facial hair as a symbol of martial pride. The French infantry earned the nickname “poilu”—literally “the hairy one”—a term that celebrated their rugged appearance and battlefield tenacity [2].

But that image didn’t survive the gas clouds. With the German release of chlorine gas at Ypres in April 1915—the first large-scale chemical attack in modern warfare—the battlefield changed forever [2]. Gas masks required direct skin contact to form a seal. Beards interfered with that seal, allowing lethal agents like phosgene and mustard gas to penetrate. By 1916, both forces had adopted strict grooming standards. Shaving became essential to survival.

Advertisement

The Seal Is Survival 

Modern gas masks are engineered to form an airtight seal against the skin. Facial hair, especially around the mask’s contact points, compromises that seal. A 2024 study using SMARTMAN manikins confirmed that beards reduce airtightness, even with masks that meet military standards [1].

In NBC school, soldiers are trained to stand in gas chambers filled with CS gas. With a proper seal and functioning filters, they can remain inside indefinitely. If your eyes water, your nose burns, or you smell the gas—your seal has failed. In a training situation that means discomfort. But in a live chemical environment with exposure to Nerve agents, Blood Agents, Blister agents, or incapacitants it means death or incapacity at the very least.

Most modern masks rely on skintight negative pressure isolation. A few allow crew members to plug into positive‑pressure systems that force filtered air into the mask, blowing contaminants away. But for the average soldier these are heavy, complex and require power, which adds weight to an already burdened soldier.

Riot Reality: Portland and Chicago 

During the recent Portland and Chicago ICE riots, reporters and camera crews-many with beards or several days stubble-were heard coughing and gagging, describing the tear gas as “overwhelming.” These reactions were widely interpreted as proof of gas potency—but from a chemical survivability standpoint, they were indicators of seal or filter failure.

Military-grade protective masks are engineered to allow soldiers to operate for extended periods in environments saturated with lethal agents. When properly fitted and paired with appropriate functioning filters, these masks prevent exposure to chemical irritants entirely. It’s not that the wearer “wouldn’t feel much”—it’s that they wouldn’t feel anything. No burning eyes, no coughing, no panic. The only detectable scents should be the neutral interior of the mask itself and, occasionally, the faint odor of activated charcoal from the filters.

If symptoms are present—burning, gagging, or even the detection of gas odor—it means the seal has failed, the filters are compromised, or the mask was improperly donned. In a riot zone, that’s discomfort. In a battlefield chemical strike, that’s fatal [9]. If civilian misunderstandings of gas exposure reveal anything, it’s how quickly people forget the basics of chemical survivability. On the battlefield, that forgetfulness is deadly—as Ukraine has shown.

Ukraine: 9,000+ Chemical Incidents 

In Ukraine, the use of chemical agents by Russian forces has been documented over 9,000 times [3–5]. These include tear gas grenades dropped from drones, improvised chemical munitions, and banned agents like chloropicrin. The OPCW has confirmed repeated violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention [4]. Dutch and German intelligence agencies report a standardized, widespread deployment of chemical weapons by Russian forces [5]. This isn’t a fringe threat. It’s a doctrinal shift. Our near-peer adversaries have normalized chemical warfare in violation of multiple treaties. And Ukraine isn’t the only warning sign. On the Korean peninsula, the threat is even more concentrated.

North Korea: Chemical Warfare Is Not Hypothetical 

North Korea has positioned 170mm self-propelled artillery and 240mm multiple-launch rocket systems capable of saturating urban zones like Seoul within minutes [6,7]. RAND testimony before Congress confirms that North Korea’s chemical and biological weapons capabilities are real and operational [6].

This means every soldier must be able to:

– Shave in the field—daily if needed and follow SOP routines 

– Perform negative pressure seal checks—before exposure, after donning, and during prolonged wear 

– Maintain mask integrity under duress—including sweat, movement, and environmental stressors

From Trenches to Today: Legacy Doctrine Meets Modern Mandate 

Chemical Environment
Members of a Mobile Training Team (MTT) from the Special Programs Division at the US Army Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. Image Credit: US Army

The evolution from WWI trench hygiene to Cold War defense, and now to 21st-century prepping doctrine, reveals a consistent Protective mask truth: seal integrity is survival.

Recently, the Secretary of War released a directive reaffirming what NBC-trained personnel have long taught: troops must train to fight in a chemical environment [8]. The directive mandates:

– Chemical warfare training for all troops 

– Proper mask fitting and documentation 

– Routine negative pressure seal checks 

– Banana oil testing using isoamyl acetate—if the wearer smells the banana scent, the seal has failed [8,10]

Banana oil testing, once used in Cold War-era drills, remains a gold standard for verifying mask fit under stress [10]. Combined with negative pressure checks and field shaving SOPs, they form the backbone of chemical survivability. This isn’t Political or media hype. It’s military doctrine. A beard is a breach point, and survivability demands discipline and daily seal rituals that ensure that a soldier is able to get a proper seal of their protective mask.

From the trenches of Ypres to the streets of Mariupol, the lesson has not changed: the mask only works if the seal holds, and the seal only holds if the face is clean. A beard may project strength, but in a chemical battlefield, it is weakness. In modern war, the beard is not a badge of strength—it is a breach point. The seal is survival, and survival is clean‑shaven. 

Author Bio: 

Hansel Rayner, PA-C, is a nationally recognized adrenal provider, NBC school–trained medical professional, and founder of Central Georgia Adrenal and Reproductive Endocrinology. He served in private practice in Tooele, Utah, during the destruction of legacy chemical weapons at Dugway Proving Ground and the Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility, where he supported hospital readiness for chemical exposure events.

References 

1. Nam H, Kang J, Lee C, Kim S. The effect of hair and beard on the airtightness of gas masks: A quantitative study using SMARTMAN. *J Adv Mil Stud*. 2024;7(1). doi:10.37944/jams.v7i1.236. 

2. Jones S. *World War I Gas Warfare Tactics and Equipment*. Oxford: Osprey Publishing; 2007:30–31. 

3. CBS News. Russia ramps up use of banned chemical weapons in Ukraine. July 4, 2025. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-ramps-up-use-banned-chemical-weapons-ukraine 

4. Atlantic Council. Russia accused of escalating chemical weapons attacks against Ukraine. July 10, 2025. https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert 

5. Al Jazeera. Russia expanding Ukraine chemical weapons use, allege European spy agencies. July 4, 2025. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/7/4/russia-expanding-chemical-weapons-use-in-ukraine-say-european-spy-agencies 

6. Parachini JV. Assessing North Korea’s Chemical and Biological Weapons Capabilities and Prioritizing Countermeasures. Testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee. RAND Corporation; January 17, 2018. https://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/CT486.html 

7. Kim JH. Why North Korea’s Artillery Threat Should Not Be Exaggerated. *Modern War Institute*. November 15, 2024. https://mwi.westpoint.edu/why-north-koreas-artillery-threat-should-not-be-exaggerated/ 

8. Department of Defense. DoD Directive 5101.17E: Roles and Responsibilities Associated with the Recovery of Chemical Warfare Material. Change 3, May 9, 2022. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/510117p.pdf 

9. Task & Purpose. Do beards actually break the seal of gas masks? May 19, 2022. https://taskandpurpose.com/news/military-beards-break-gas-mask-seal/ 

10. First Division Museum. The Fog of War: Gas Attacks. Accessed October 2025. https://www.fdmuseum.org

Advertisement

What readers are saying

Generating a quick summary of the conversation...

This summary is AI-generated. AI can make mistakes and this summary is not a replacement for reading the comments.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR