A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Gas in the Invasion of Japan



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 16th 04, 02:45 PM
Matt Wiser
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Gas in the Invasion of Japan


"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.

And British soldiers have been always are always
ready to stand and fight
for their country and i have no problem with
any soldiers death in the line
of duty.

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.

So would you justify the use of lets say Neutron
bombs 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.


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.

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.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!
  #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.
  #3  
Old September 17th 04, 04:56 PM
Guinnog65
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...
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.


And of course there was Churchill's proposal to use anthrax against Germany
the previous year.


  #4  
Old September 17th 04, 09:41 PM
Howard Berkowitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Guinnog65" wrote:

"Howard Berkowitz" wrote in message
...



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


And of course there was Churchill's proposal to use anthrax against
Germany
the previous year.


And again targeted at agriculture.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
B-29s & P-51s Strike Japan plus "Carrier Franklin" at Zeno's Drive-In zeno Home Built 1 October 4th 04 11:19 PM
For those who served in Japan or USAFSS flying status Thomas B. Roach Military Aviation 0 January 26th 04 06:26 PM
Hiroshima justified? (Invasion should have been attempted atthe very least if not carried thru) Mark and Kim Smith Military Aviation 2 December 27th 03 08:33 PM
russia vs. japan in 1941 [WAS: 50% of NAZI oil..] Military Aviation 136 December 6th 03 11:40 PM
Japan, U.S. aircraft share 'win-win' situation at Misawa Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 October 11th 03 09:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.