View Single Post
  #2  
Old September 16th 04, 08:02 PM
Howard Berkowitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article 41499abf@bg2., "Matt Wiser"
wrote:

"Sparky AKA_Sparkticus" wrote:
phosgene and mustard gas

(what was wrong with blockading Japan, it is
a couple of tiny islands)

You see this is my problem the Country's that
claim to be fighting on the
side of GOOD stoop to use tactics that are worse
then those employed by the
enemy.


The ends do not always justify the means of
achievement.
When we hold the moral high ground, we should
behave that in a more moral
way then our enemies.


I would personally MUCH rather die from a nerve agent than from
incendiaries. Chemical weapons are essentially obsolete, not offering
any particular battlefield advantage compared to such things as cluster
munitions. Biological weapons are rather unpredictable, and usable
primarily for strategic purposes.

Personally, I've never understood how CB weapons are more or less moral
than other munitions. There are enough practical reasons that major
powers are better off banning them.

So would you justify the use of lets say Neutron
bombs


Just out of curiosity, why do you single out "neutron bombs", or, more
correctly, enhanced radiation nuclear weapons?


on another
countries sovereign land to attack a few extremists...
Maybe they could use chemical weapons or even
biological, The US and UK have
loads of these stock piled.


Evidence?


Ever heard of the Paris Treaty on CBW weapons? The stocks of CBW
weapons
held by the U.S. and British are being destroyed. You've never heard of
Johnston
Island or Toole, Utah? Those, among other places are where the stuff is
being
destroyed.


The stuff going through destruction is sufficiently unstable that it's a
challenge to get through the incinerator, much less use in combat.

U.S. policy is now to regard any use of CBW weapons as equal to a nuclear
attack and respond accordingly. Country X uses gas on American
troops-they
get nuked in reprisal. End of story-and of country.

The U.S. almost used gas at Iwo Jima, but FDR rejected use. Admrial
Nimitz
said "That decision cost us many fine Marines." Gas was indeed being
considered
for use in the invasion, with mustard, Phosgene, and Cynagen Chloride as
the agents of choice. Tests in Utah found that in cave and bunker
complexes,
gas concentrations occured 5X to 10X that what one got in the open air:
enough
to overcome gas masks and kill masked Japanese. Two shiploads of gas
shells
were to be at hand on X-Day, and two more by X+30. Look at Iwo and
Okinawa
and see what I mean by cave and bunker complexes and look at the
casualties
taken attacking those complexes and the reason for considering gas in the
invasion of Kyushu is obvious.


Remember that there were also plans to use nuclear weapons in support of
the invasion.

Independent of the invasion, there were also preparations to use
chemical weapons against the Japanese rice crop.