"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!

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.

"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.

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.