U.S. Military Taught Officers: Use ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam

[Neomega]

One could say that Japan TRIED. They lacked the ability. They surly would have I agree.

Wait, so you can only wage total war if you have the right weapons? How was Japan not engaged in total war? How did they lack the ability?

By your fail logic, America did not engage in total war, because although they used atomic weapons, they "lacked the ability" to use the Death Star.

Germany did NOT use nerve gas. Admirable restraint.

please.

1. Germany used nerve gas. That's how they exterminated masses of Jews and other dissidents. But I'm not surprised to see you praising the Nazi's for their restraint, since in another thread you say you'd nuke all Arab cities if Russia nuked Israel for Israel nuking Iran.

2. Even if they didn't, that still does not mean they were not engaged in total war. Nerve gas is not really that great of a weapon... and can blow back in your face if you are not careful. That's why it is better to corral people up into a shower stall and pump the room full of the stuff.

 

[Takhisis]

When's the last post that discussed anything even remoltely related to the OP? You're only discussing each other.

 

[Neomega]

When's the last post that discussed anything even remoltely related to the OP? You're only discussing each other.

the post right above yours.

Note, title of thread:
Use ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam

re: total war:

One could say that Japan TRIED. They lacked the ability. They surly would have I agree.


In case you missed it, we are "discussing" the merits of "total war", which is in the title of the thread.

 

[Formaldehyde]

WW II was very different than the GWOT. Of course you know that, and you know it is silly to even try to draw parallels.

And yet that is actually what this thread is all about, as the OP makes quite clear. An officer in the military was doing just that until the chairman of the JCoS aparently put an end to it.

And I seriously doubt our current JCoS has any problem with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

You do realize, of course, that Japan is our ally. That waging war against civilians is now a direct violation of the Geneva Conventions, which the US is indeed a signatory.

 

[Chiteng]

Wait, so you can only wage total war if you have the right weapons? How was Japan not engaged in total war? How did they lack the ability?

By your fail logic, America did not engage in total war, because although they used atomic weapons, they "lacked the ability" to use the Death Star.




please.

1. Germany used nerve gas. That's how they exterminated masses of Jews and other dissidents. But I'm not surprised to see you praising the Nazi's for their restraint, since in another thread you say you'd nuke all Arab cities if Russia nuked Israel for Israel nuking Iran.

2. Even if they didn't, that still does not mean they were not engaged in total war. Nerve gas is not really that great of a weapon... and can blow back in your face if you are not careful. That's why it is better to corral people up into a shower stall and pump the room full of the stuff.

and again your wrong =)
Cyanide is NOT nerve gas. Showing you know very little about either subject.

 

[Neomega]

and again your wrong =)
Cyanide is NOT nerve gas. Showing you know very little about either subject.

LoL I knew you'd spring on the technicality. So by Chiteng's Dictionary, a nation can only be considered fighting a total war if it uses nerve gas or atomic weapons. Other gassing agents do not qualify, only nerve gas and atomic weapons.

Or are there other weapons which qualify a nation as fighting a total war if they use them? Please enlighten us, oh Chiteng, of your personal definitions of "total war".

What weapons qualify a nation as fighting total war, and which do not? Please Chiteng, let us know, as apparently, you are now he who defines what total war is.

Also, I noticed you dodge tons of questions. How was Japan not fighting a total war?

 

[Chiteng]

LoL I knew you'd spring on the technicality. So by Chiteng's Dictionary, a nation can only be considered fighting a total war if it uses nerve gas or atomic weapons. Other gassing agents do not qualify, only nerve gas and atomic weapons.

Or are there other weapons which qualify a nation as fighting a total war if they use them? Please enlighten us, oh Chiteng, of your personal definitions of "total war".

What weapons qualify a nation as fighting total war, and which do not? Please Chiteng, let us know, as apparently, you are now he who defines what total war is.

Also, I noticed you dodge tons of questions. How was Japan not fighting a total war?

None of the above posts is what 'I' have said. The author has filled it with his own conjecture and bias.
Japan lacked the industrial base to wage a true modern total war. If they had had one,
it is a certainty they would have done so. One would think that would be enough.
Germany did wage Total War, but NOT against all opponents. In particular not against the French, British and the USA. In the East however, yes they did. And they had it waged right back at them.

 

[Aroddo]

1. Germany used nerve gas. That's how they exterminated masses of Jews and other dissidents. But I'm not surprised to see you praising the Nazi's for their restraint, since in another thread you say you'd nuke all Arab cities if Russia nuked Israel for Israel nuking Iran.

2. Even if they didn't, that still does not mean they were not engaged in total war. Nerve gas is not really that great of a weapon... and can blow back in your face if you are not careful. That's why it is better to corral people up into a shower stall and pump the room full of the stuff.

1. No, they didn't use nerve gas in war. Yes, they used gas to murder Jews. It's an important difference but it clearly shows that 'restraint' wasn't the driving motivation.

2. Nerve gas is the most dangerous and 'useful' weapon in existence. The ability to kill an entire swathe of land while leaving all buildings intacts? Massive area of effect and easy deployment? Configurable for self-dissipation or sedentarization? You have no idea what you are talking about!

One could say that Japan TRIED. They lacked the ability. They surly would have I agree.
Germany did NOT use nerve gas. Admirable restraint.

Well, Hitler did actually order the production of nerve gas and the crowning achievement was the development of Sarin. Coupled with the V2 rockets it would have been an easy thing to depopulate London and other major British cities in a matter of days.
Ironically we can thank the executives of the chemical weapons program responsible for developing that stuff in the first place for preventing Hitler from deploying the weapons. Apparently they hid the true capabilities of their chemical weapons from Hitler because they feared retaliation from the allies - they mistakenly assumed that the allies had nerve gas worth mentioning.
Even the japs used C-weapons "only" on non-westerners for the same reason. The chinese got the full treatment though, including biological warfare.


So, one has to wonder if the warmongering author in favor of 'Hiroshima style' total war would limit himself to 'only' nukes.
Wouldn't be the first time for the USA to use chemical weapons or to go to total war either. Vietnam still has one of the highest rate of birth defects as a direct result of Agent Orange (an estimated 500,000 in total) and lost over 5 million people (more than 10% of it's total population at that time) in that war.
In comparison, the USA barely lost 60,000 soldiers and was crying it's bleeding heart out over their losses.

Americans have absolutely no idea what 'total war' means. For them, war is a business sold as an adventure.

 

[Chiteng]

1. No, they didn't use nerve gas in war. Yes, they used gas to murder Jews. It's an important difference but it clearly shows that 'restraint' wasn't the driving motivation.

2. Nerve gas is the most dangerous and 'useful' weapon in existence. The ability to kill an entire swathe of land while leaving all buildings intacts? Massive area of effect and easy deployment? Configurable for self-dissipation or sedentarization? You have no idea what you are talking about!



Well, Hitler did actually order the production of nerve gas and the crowning achievement was the development of Sarin. Coupled with the V2 rockets it would have been an easy thing to depopulate London and other major British cities in a matter of days.
Ironically we can thank the executives of the chemical weapons program responsible for developing that stuff in the first place for preventing Hitler from deploying the weapons. Apparently they hid the true capabilities of their chemical weapons from Hitler because they feared retaliation from the allies - they mistakenly assumed that the allies had nerve gas worth mentioning.
Even the japs used C-weapons "only" on non-westerners for the same reason. The chinese got the full treatment though, including biological warfare.


So, one has to wonder if the warmongering author in favor of 'Hiroshima style' total war would limit himself to 'only' nukes.
Wouldn't be the first time for the USA to use chemical weapons or to go to total war either. Vietnam still has one of the highest rate of birth defects as a direct result of Agent Orange (an estimated 500,000 in total) and lost over 5 million people (more than 10% of it's total population at that time) in that war.
In comparison, the USA barely lost 60,000 soldiers and was crying it's bleeding heart out over their losses.

Americans have absolutely no idea what 'total war' means. For them, war is a business sold as an adventure.

Actually, Hitler had himself been gassed in WW1, and the long convalescence, wondering if he would be blinded for life, left a profound impact on him.
In the closing months of WW2 quite a few of his senior advisers Jodl among them
suggested that they use Nerve gas on the Soviet front. His pat response was,
'have you ever been gassed?', 'no', 'then talk about something you know about'

I realize that it isnt PC to attribute any trace of humanity to this man.
But it was NOT ignorance of what nerve gas could do, that restrained him.
It was recognition of the USA ability to retaliate, since it was a USA invention.
Coupled with his own experience.

 

[Neomega]

Japan lacked the industrial base to wage a true modern total war. If they had had one,
it is a certainty they would have done so. One would think that would be enough.

Japan waged total war during WW II, period.

You are the only person on the planet arguing they didn't, and you are doing so by trying to change what "total war" means, to fit your personal definition, just so you can win an argument online.

2. Nerve gas is the most dangerous and 'useful' weapon in existence. The ability to kill an entire swathe of land while leaving all buildings intacts? Massive area of effect and easy deployment? Configurable for self-dissipation or sedentarization? You have no idea what you are talking about!

Oh, I don't? If nerve gas is so awesome, why isn't it used more often? Why didn't they kick it into high production during WW II and use it at every front, every day, all the time? What about WW I? Why didn't all armies turn to chemical warfare only during WW I, if it is so great? Why even bother using bullets and bombs if it is the best weapon evar?

1. weather: nerve gas is susceptible to the weather, and can end up backfiring
2. gas masks
3. contamination: conquered areas become dead zones, which cannot be used for advancement
4. tactical storage: one lucky artillery shot to a nerve gas stockpile, and your whole camp can die
5. strategic storage and handling: moving around the stuff is dangerous
6. stockpile storage and discarding: over the course of years, the shells become dangerous.

In summary, nerve gas is best used against unsuspecting civilian populations you want to kill wholesale, in areas you intend to leave alone for a while. Unlike most weapons, when trying to deploy in a chaotic war theatre, gas agents and bio weapons have the extreme danger of backfiring.

BTW: I am getting some of this from http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/mr1018.5.ch5.pdf

Note on page 4:

"During World War II, the Germans used aerial bombs and spray tanks for delivery. The vapor density allowed the agent to flow into lower terrain, trenches, bunkers etc., extending the hazard after the attack, which the Germans regarded as desirable."

So, at least according to this scholarly article, the germans did use nerve agents. I'll take his word over "I have read the sharia" Chiteng's word.

It was recognition of the USA ability to retaliate, since it was a USA invention.

wrong again, Chiteng.

The first nerve agent of military significance was discovered by Dr. Gerhard
Schrader, a chemist conducting insecticide research with organophosphates in
1937.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/mr1018.5.ch5.pdf , pg. 2

Germany did wage Total War, but NOT against all opponents. In particular not against the French, British and the USA.

LoL. Yeah, they really held back against the French and English.
Oh right, they didn't use the death star, so it wasn't total war.

 

[Chiteng]

Japan waged total war during WW II, period.

You are the only person on the planet arguing they didn't, and you are doing so by trying to change what "total war" means, to fit your personal definition, just so you can win an argument online.


Oh, I don't? If nerve gas is so awesome, why isn't it used more often? Why didn't they kick it into high production during WW II and use it at every front, every day, all the time? What about WW I? Why didn't all armies turn to chemical warfare only during WW I, if it is so great? Why even bother using bullets and bombs if it is the best weapon evar?

1. weather: nerve gas is susceptible to the weather, and can end up backfiring
2. gas masks
3. contamination: conquered areas become dead zones, which cannot be used for advancement
4. tactical storage: one lucky artillery shot to a nerve gas stockpile, and your whole camp can die
5. strategic storage and handling: moving around the stuff is dangerous
6. stockpile storage and discarding: over the course of years, the shells become dangerous.

In summary, nerve gas is best used against unsuspecting civilian populations you want to kill wholesale, in areas you intend to leave alone for a while. Unlike most weapons, when trying to deploy in a chaotic war theatre, gas agents and bio weapons have the extreme danger of backfiring.

BTW: I am getting some of this from http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/mr1018.5.ch5.pdf

Note on page 4:

"During World War II, the Germans used aerial bombs and spray tanks for delivery. The vapor density allowed the agent to flow into lower terrain, trenches, bunkers etc., extending the hazard after the attack, which the Germans regarded as desirable."

So, at least according to this scholarly article, the germans did use nerve agents. I'll take his word over "I have read the sharia" Chiteng's word.



wrong again, Chiteng.

The first nerve agent of military significance was discovered by Dr. Gerhard
Schrader, a chemist conducting insecticide research with organophosphates in
1937.

http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/mr1018.5.ch5.pdf , pg. 2



LoL. Yeah, they really held back against the French and English.
Oh right, they didn't use the death star, so it wasn't total war.

Where did they use this nerve gas =)
Against whom?

The Germans did not shoot British/French/US prisoners out of hand.
Nor did they lay waste to the countryside as they retreated(in the West)

Yes it all depends on what the reader thinks total war is.
Anyone can google a site, try actually studying the subject =)

Oh and who funded the research that created the nerve agents? The USA.

 

[Neomega]

Yeah, OK, Chiteng, make it up as you go along, and hope you don't get called out on it.

Your posts are a waste of time.

 

[Aroddo]

Oh, I don't? If nerve gas is so awesome, why isn't it used more often? Why didn't they kick it into high production during WW II and use it at every front, every day, all the time? What about WW I? Why didn't all armies turn to chemical warfare only during WW I, if it is so great? Why even bother using bullets and bombs if it is the best weapon evar?

You might as well ask why the vietnam war wasn't fought with nukes. I actually answered why they didn't use it in WW2 in the very post you just quoted.
And why didn't they use it in WW1?
Gee, maybe because they hadn't invented the really effective stuff yet?

1. weather: nerve gas is susceptible to the weather, and can end up backfiring
2. gas masks
3. contamination: conquered areas become dead zones, which cannot be used for advancement
4. tactical storage: one lucky artillery shot to a nerve gas stockpile, and your whole camp can die
5. strategic storage and handling: moving around the stuff is dangerous
6. stockpile storage and discarding: over the course of years, the shells become dangerous.

1. generals learn early to not piss against the wind. and it's not like you have to rely on nerve gas for every battle. But it's true, gas is not a sniper rifle. It makes more sense to use it in a carpet bombing situation.
2. Sarin kills through skin contact.
3. Sarin dissolves in water after several days. That results in toxic water, of course, but eventually it washes away. Other toxins don't dissolve and stick around much longer. You choose the right one for every occasion. Sometimes you want to create a dead zone.
4. true for everything.
5. no kidding. handling weapons is dangerous ???
6. unlike rusting nukes, you mean?

Sure, chemical weapons are dangerous but it's managable. Their usefulness really just depends on how ruthless you want to be.

BTW: I am getting some of this from http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/library/randrep/mr1018.5.ch5.pdf

Note on page 4:

"During World War II, the Germans used aerial bombs and spray tanks for delivery. The vapor density allowed the agent to flow into lower terrain, trenches, bunkers etc., extending the hazard after the attack, which the Germans regarded as desirable."

So, at least according to this scholarly article, the germans did use nerve agents. I'll take his word over "I have read the sharia" Chiteng's word.

As far as I read that article, it only describes the delivery systems used by the germans in WW2. There is actually no mention of them actually using them.
I couldn't find any instance nerve gas attacks by germans in WW2 anywhere. Apparently only Japan used chemical/biological warfare, which earned them atomic warfare.

Yeah, OK, Chiteng, make it up as you go along, and hope you don't get called out on it.

Your posts are a waste of time.

That is a mighty impolite thing to say. Instead of insulting him you can just quote facts or proof at him.
Good luck, though ... before Pearl Harbor the USA had quite a few shady deals with the nazi regime ... including Prescott Bush, grand-daddy of Dubya.

 

[Neomega]

You might as well ask why the vietnam war wasn't fought with nukes. I actually answered why they didn't use it in WW2 in the very post you just quoted.

Apparently they hid the true capabilities of their chemical weapons from Hitler because they feared retaliation from the allies - they mistakenly assumed that the allies had nerve gas worth mentioning.

Where did you read that? From the report i read, it is far more likely they did not, because they safely could not.

Regardless, I am satisfied that Nerve gas is the most dangerous and 'useful' weapon in existence. is certainly not a true statement, and your claim I "had no idea what I was talking about", was certainly un-called for.

And why didn't they use it in WW1?
Gee, maybe because they hadn't invented the really effective stuff yet?

I said chemical weapons, not nerve. And of course, this time I knew I had to be careful about the technicalities, or it would be jumped up and down upon again, like some great victory.

But I asked the question because chemical agents are much like nerve agents, yet their use was not that widespread.

1. generals learn early to not piss against the wind. and it's not like you have to rely on nerve gas for every battle. But it's true, gas is not a sniper rifle. It makes more sense to use it in a carpet bombing situation.

So we agree, better for total devastation of an un-armed population.

2. Sarin kills through skin contact.
3. Sarin dissolves in water after several days. That results in toxic water, of course, but eventually it washes away. Other toxins don't dissolve and stick around much longer. You choose the right one for every occasion. Sometimes you want to create a dead zone.

Sarin is also one of the most deadly if mishandled, fo rthat very reason.

4. true for everything.

No, not true for everything. An ammo dump will explode, maybe send out some shrapnel, maybe kill a few of your guys. An nerve agent dump could kill the whole camp.

5. no kidding. handling weapons is dangerous ???

Yeah, no kidding, but especially nerve agents.

6. unlike rusting nukes, you mean?

yes, unlike rusting nukes. Nukes require an exact implosion to detonate, or they are pretty much harmless. A leaking sarin shell is far more serious than a dilapidated nuclear warhead.

Sure, chemical weapons are dangerous but it's manageable. Their usefulness really just depends on how ruthless you want to be.

...And a host of other factors, as listed above.

As far as I read that article, it only describes the delivery systems used by the germans in WW2. There is actually no mention of them actually using them.
I couldn't find any instance nerve gas attacks by germans in WW2 anywhere. Apparently only Japan used chemical/biological warfare, which earned them atomic warfare.

Japan earned Atomic warfare because they were still fighting by the time fat man and little boy were deployable, the Germans had already surrendered. And, as I am sure you know, firebombings were just as devastating.

That is a mighty impolite thing to say.

1. It's chiteng. The guy is a liar, and links to religionofpeace.com as "proof". His posts are a waste of time.
2. You know what else is impolite?

You have no idea what you are talking about!

Especially, if I do have an idea of what I am talking about.

 

[kramerfan86]

I fail to see how anyone can claim the German pummeling of London doesnt count as total war unless the person is really desperate to win an argument.

 

[Aroddo]

Apparently they hid the true capabilities of their chemical weapons from Hitler because they feared retaliation from the allies - they mistakenly assumed that the allies had nerve gas worth mentioning.

Where did you read that? From the report i read, it is far more likely they did not, because they safely could not.

I actually came across that hiding-from-Hitler statement in several forums. On closer inspection all those forums quote wikipedia and wikipedia linked no source regarding that, so I can't honestly say that this statement is true.
On the other hand it is highly likely that the fear of mutual destruction kept all european parties from using c-weapons. Churchhill explicitely threatened Hitler in 1942 with retaliation strikes in case Hitler uses gas on the east front.
And if anyone could safely and successfully use nerve gas weapons in ww2 then it would be the germans, judging from their tech base.

I said chemical weapons, not nerve. And of course, this time I knew I had to be careful about the technicalities, or it would be jumped up and down upon again, like some great victory.

But I asked the question because chemical agents are much like nerve agents, yet their use was not that widespread.

nerve gas are chemical weapons. not just 'like'. it's just a descriptor for how they kill.

So we agree, better for total devastation of an un-armed population.

You can kill an unarmed population with practically everything. No argument there.
But just imagine if Saddam had indeed used tons of Sarin missiles, grenades, booby-traps or gas throwers in the defense of Iraq? Do you really think the USA would have had it that easy? No, they'd either have to resort to a completely different strategic approach or equip every soldier with a full-body hazmat suit or plenty of counter-agents. After the first devastating C-strike.

1. It's chiteng. The guy is a liar, and links to religionofpeace.com as "proof". His posts are a waste of time.

Don't know much about him. His last few posts didn't seem too radical or otherwise warranting a waste-of-time rating.

2. You know what else is impolite?
Especially, if I do have an idea of what I am talking about.

I didn't call you a waste of time nor did I make a post for the express purpose of insulting you. In fact I took quite some time answering you, which is quite different from what you did. But you apparently have a history.

I fail to see how anyone can claim the German pummeling of London doesnt count as total war unless the person is really desperate to win an argument.

To me 'Total War' means a country using all of it's resources against an enemies army and it's civilian population. Of course Nazi-Germany was waging total war against Britain. And Russia, most of all.

 

[red_elk]

The Germans did not shoot British/French/US prisoners out of hand.
Nor did they lay waste to the countryside as they retreated(in the West)

I, for some strange reasons, consider not only British/French/US POWs, but also Slavs and Jews as people. And Eastern front, where Nazis lost about 80% of their manpower as important theater of war.

You could as well said that Nazis didn't fry babies alive and ate them, therefore it wasn't total war from their side.

 

[r16]

regarding German and Japanese restrictions on unconventional warfare , one must always remember the B-29+nuke combo . Even if they weren't in existance in 1940-41 their effectiveness caused a high part in the downfall of the Axis . German air defence requirements concentrating on developing a defence against the B-29 caused a delay to Jumo 213 and the fighters it might have powered of which the Fw-190D was so late yet effective . Meanwhile the Japanese opted for a conquest to keep their homeland from B-29 range ...

the Axis had no doubts about what might have happened .

 

[Chiteng]

I, for some strange reasons, consider not only British/French/US POWs, but also Slavs and Jews as people. And Eastern front, where Nazis lost about 80% of their manpower as important theater of war.

You could as well said that Nazis didn't fry babies alive and ate them, therefore it wasn't total war from their side.

Killing helpless people isnt war. It is MURDER.
Germany did indeed practice total war, but not against everyone.
Total war is more than specific instances. It is a policy.

And if bombing London was total war, then so was bombing Dresden.

 

[Flying Pig]

And if bombing London was total war, then so was bombing Dresden.

Ye-es...