Way off topic, but it has do to with the French

On Mar 3, 7:16*pm, " wrote:

"Poison gas" was used extensively during the Great War. One of the
post-war conclusions was that it was more trouble than it was worth
and had only limited tactical value. The environmental conditions had
to be just so, and often the burden placed on friendly troops reduced
their own combat effectiveness.

The reason the Axis was so reluctant to employ such weapons was more
practical than moral -- contrary prevailing winds, and a tactical
emphasis on the offensive made gas unattractive as a battlefield
weapon.

The only great unknown is why the Germans didn't use it in the last
throes of the Reich.


That is a mystery.

There are very few weapons which use cannot be justified in one
extremity or the other.


I suppose there is always the "desperate times call for desperate
measures" argument. But the kind of horrible, painful death you get
from poison gas just seems to put it into a different category.

Despite all the bad press, MAD worked, and kept the nuclear option the
untapped resource.

Dan-

Except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But as bad as they were, more
Japanese were killed by the incendiary bombs we dropped than by the
atomic bombs.

There were plans being made in the American military to use atomic
bombs to soften up the beaches if it became necessary to invade
Japan. They didn't realize the effects the radiation would have had
on our troops when they came ashore. That would have been a
catastrophe for both sides.

Surprisingly (to me), the most expensive weapon system America
developed during World War II was not the atomic bomb. It was the
B-29 that dropped it.

Phil

Phil J wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:16*pm, " wrote:

"Poison gas" was used extensively during the Great War. One of the
post-war conclusions was that it was more trouble than it was worth
and had only limited tactical value. The environmental conditions had
to be just so, and often the burden placed on friendly troops reduced
their own combat effectiveness.

The reason the Axis was so reluctant to employ such weapons was more
practical than moral -- contrary prevailing winds, and a tactical
emphasis on the offensive made gas unattractive as a battlefield
weapon.

The only great unknown is why the Germans didn't use it in the last
throes of the Reich.


That is a mystery.

Hitler was temporarily blinded by mustard gas in WWI. So that may have had
some influence (excepting the use of gas in concentration camps - Hitler
suggested using poison gas on Jews in Mein Kampf, where he also recounted
his experience in WWI with mustard gas.) In fact Wikipedia claims a cite in
support of the following statement:

"One notable poison gas casualty of the Great War was Adolf Hitler, who was
temporarily blinded. As a result, Hitler adamantly refused to authorise the
use of poison gas on the battlefield during World War II, for fear of
retaliation.[32]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_...in_World_War_I

Trivia: Hitler allegedly originally wore a "Kaiser" style mustache at the
start of WWI but was ordered to clip it to the now-infamous "Toothbrush"
style so it would fit under the respirator masks used during mustard gas
attacks. Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothbrush_moustache

Jim Logajan wrote in
:

Phil J wrote:
On Mar 3, 7:16*pm, " wrote:

"Poison gas" was used extensively during the Great War. One of the
post-war conclusions was that it was more trouble than it was worth
and had only limited tactical value. The environmental conditions
had to be just so, and often the burden placed on friendly troops
reduced their own combat effectiveness.

The reason the Axis was so reluctant to employ such weapons was more
practical than moral -- contrary prevailing winds, and a tactical
emphasis on the offensive made gas unattractive as a battlefield
weapon.

The only great unknown is why the Germans didn't use it in the last
throes of the Reich.


That is a mystery.

Hitler was temporarily blinded by mustard gas in WWI. So that may have
had some influence (excepting the use of gas in concentration camps -
Hitler suggested using poison gas on Jews in Mein Kampf, where he also
recounted his experience in WWI with mustard gas.) In fact Wikipedia
claims a cite in support of the following statement:

"One notable poison gas casualty of the Great War was Adolf Hitler,
who was temporarily blinded. As a result, Hitler adamantly refused to
authorise the use of poison gas on the battlefield during World War
II, for fear of retaliation.[32]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_...in_World_War_I

Trivia: Hitler allegedly originally wore a "Kaiser" style mustache at
the start of WWI but was ordered to clip it to the now-infamous
"Toothbrush" style so it would fit under the respirator masks used
during mustard gas attacks. Reference:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toothbrush_moustache


Wow. You would wonder how he came upon that style, allright. I suppose I
always just assumed it was fashionable in it's day.


Bertie

On Mar 3, 10:00 pm, Phil J wrote:

I suppose there is always the "desperate times call for desperate
measures" argument. But the kind of horrible, painful death you get
from poison gas just seems to put it into a different category.

True, yet in the Pacific, there seemed to be no concern about horror
-- flamethrowers weren't very nice.

Except for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But as bad as they were, more
Japanese were killed by the incendiary bombs we dropped than by the
atomic bombs.

True, and all the revisionists should remember that.

There were plans being made in the American military to use atomic
bombs to soften up the beaches if it became necessary to invade
Japan. They didn't realize the effects the radiation would have had
on our troops when they came ashore. That would have been a
catastrophe for both sides.

Not by those manufacturing the bombs -- we only had two, and we used
them. The inventory didn't increase until long after the Japanese
surrender.

Surprisingly (to me), the most expensive weapon system America
developed during World War II was not the atomic bomb. It was the
B-29 that dropped it.

Phil

Per unit, or overall? That doesn't seem right -- there were tens of
thousands working at Oak Ridge....

Atomic bombs were dropped on those two Japanese cities, but MAD was
not yet a strategic consideration --- the Japanese couldn't retaliate
in kind.

MAD doctrine evolved as the US and USSR realized the potential within
each arsenal (MAD wasn't formulated as a doctrine until McNamara in
the 60s).

Dan

On Mar 4, 5:38*am, " wrote:

Surprisingly (to me), the most expensive weapon system America
developed during World War II was not the atomic bomb. *It was the
B-29 that dropped it.

Phil

Per unit, or overall? That doesn't seem right -- there were tens of
thousands working at Oak Ridge....


I was just talking about the development costs, not the production
costs. It was 2 billion for the atomic bomb versus 3 billion for the
B-29.

Atomic bombs were dropped on those two Japanese cities, but MAD was
not yet a strategic consideration --- the Japanese couldn't retaliate
in kind.


You're right. We probably wouldn't have used them if the Japanese
could have done the same in response.

MAD doctrine evolved as the US and USSR realized the potential within
each arsenal (MAD wasn't formulated as a doctrine until McNamara in
the 60s).

Dan

MAD has been pretty successful in preventing large hot wars so far.
Still, if you look out across the next thousand years, it is hard to
imagine that nuclear weapons won't still exist on this planet, if not
something even worse. What are the odds that they will never be used?

Phil

On Mar 4, 1:23 pm, Phil J wrote:

Per unit, or overall? That doesn't seem right -- there were tens of
thousands working at Oak Ridge....

I was just talking about the development costs, not the production
costs. It was 2 billion for the atomic bomb versus 3 billion for the
B-29.

Amazing!


MAD has been pretty successful in preventing large hot wars so far.
Still, if you look out across the next thousand years, it is hard to
imagine that nuclear weapons won't still exist on this planet, if not
something even worse. What are the odds that they will never be used?

Phil

MAD only works when both side have the ability to reason.

This is why Iran and other Islamist regimes and groups should be
prevented form possessing Nukes.

Dan