Poison Gas Saves Lives.


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

A little known fact about the Pacific War (1941-1945) was that President Truman authorized the use of phosgene gas on Japanese cities if it had been necessary to invade. The successful use of nuclear weapons forestalled that.

The plan was to use of to 54,000 tons of phosgene a rather nasty gas prior to the invasion of Kyushu scheduled for November of 1945. The follow up invasion Operation Coronet was scheduled for spring of 1946. Phosgene was to be used on Tokyo and other large Japanese cities. Estimates of up to five million Japanese dead were made.

For the details of this planned attacked see:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p12_Weber.html

Now why am I bringing this up? Because people bitch and moan over the use of nuclear weapons. It so happens we killed more Japanese civilians with "conventional" weapons (h.e. and incendiary) than with the two A-bombs. One one night 125,000 people in Tokyo were turned into charcoal briquettes by use of incendiary weapons during a night raid on a sixteen square mile are of Tokyo. It was completely burned out, since most of the buildings were made of wood. This took place on the night of March 9, 1945. I never hear the nuclear complainers mention what happened to Tokyo. Not once. Not ever. About the only thing to complain about with nuclear weapons is the fall out and the residual effects of radiation on people's bodies (increased rates of cancer mostly).

I do not know why nuclear weapons are the "black beast" of warfare when, as I have shown, there are much nastier weapons -- to wit, gas and incendiary bombs.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Bob,

Another thing that rarely gets mentioned is that the Japanese were much farther along in the area of bioweaponry than anyone else at the time. The Allies could not discount the possibility of the Japanese coming up with a game-changing bioweapon that could have changed the tide of the war. Interestingly, there were many fewer Japanese tried for War Crimes than Germans and there was no Japanese equivalent of Nuremberg, because US intelligence wanted cooperation from anybody involved in the Japanese bioweapons program.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now why am I bringing this up? Because people bitch and moan over the use of nuclear weapons.

I don't "bitch and moan over the use of nuclear weapons", I bitch and moan over how you glorify war of any kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now why am I bringing this up? Because people bitch and moan over the use of nuclear weapons.

I don't "bitch and moan over the use of nuclear weapons", I bitch and moan over how you glorify war of any kind.

GS, I have quite different views than Bob, but I think you mischaracterize his position. I think he wants to stay out of war completely or slaughter the enemy no holds barred. He often posts provocative positions because he wants other Americans to take threats in war extremely seriously and to not have any illusions about it.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS, I have quite different views than Bob, but I think you mischaracterize his position. I think he wants to stay out of war completely or slaughter the enemy no holds barred. He often posts provocative positions because he wants other Americans to take threats in war extremely seriously and to not have any illusions about it.

Jim

Right on the mark! If we are not prepared to slaughter our enemies to the last man, woman and child we should not be at war. War is very serious business and it must be fought thoroughly Look at what happened with Germany and France. If one or the other country had been completely eliminated in the Franco Prussian war we would not have had WW2.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also agree with James' assertion on Bob's stance: Leave me be or else (this part being quick and decesive).

War is hell. How you bring closure in conflict can either be long and drawn out, or short with minimal losses. The idea is to use enough force to see your enemy withdraw - for good.

A nuclear blast is a devastating event (i.e. can claim thousands of lives in the blink of an eye). Does that discount other forms of weapons, in smaller doses, that can cause greater casualties?

~ Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... slaughter our enemies to the last man, woman and child ...

I am speechless.

In the Old Testament there was a case where the Lord decreed that the animals and trees were to be wiped out too. So this is progress!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

..... slaughter our enemies to the last man, woman and child ...

I am speechless.

In the Old Testament there was a case where the Lord decreed that the animals and trees were to be wiped out too. So this is progress!

LOL, :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know why nuclear weapons are the "black beast" of warfare when, as I have shown, there are much nastier weapons -- to wit, gas and incendiary bombs.

Strawman. I've never claimed slaughtering the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki any different in kind than Tokyo or Dresden, and your advocacy of mass murder is made no better or worse by the method you wish to use to achieve it.

Aaron

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not know why nuclear weapons are the "black beast" of warfare when, as I have shown, there are much nastier weapons -- to wit, gas and incendiary bombs.

Strawman. I've never claimed slaughtering the citizens of Hiroshima or Nagasaki any different in kind than Tokyo or Dresden, and your advocacy of mass murder is made no better or worse by the method you wish to use to achieve it.

Aaron

Warfare against those who attacked us first is not murder. It is national defense, a form of self defense writ large. What we did to Japan was totally justified. Also bombing Germany into a rubble pile was totally justified --- they declared war against us. The key to victory is hard war. Let your first blow be your strongest blow.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

Poison gas SAVES lives?

Gimmee a break!

Poison gas kills people. Pretending otherwise is a silly word game to provoke people. And I believe you know exactly what you are doing.

You just used the rhetorical method of any two-bit liberal.

You're better than that.

Michael

Had the U.S. been required to invade Japan phosgene gas delivered by air would have reduced the resistance to our attacks. That would have saved many allied lives. From a logical point of view Japanese resistance was futile since the U.S. could bomb from the air at will. We had air supremacy. There would be no way to stop a gas attack delivered by air. Anything that kills the enemy saves the lives of the attacking troops. A thorough drenching with phosgene gas also might have broken though Japanese fanaticism and resistance. As things were, two nuclear attacks broke their will to fight (or at least it convinced the Emperor god-king that resistance was futile).

I assume you read the article to which I gave a reference. President Truman authorized gas attack against Japan in the event invasion became necessary. Given the kind of resistance that the Japanese showed at Okinowa, he was perfectly justified. The Japanese were not a rational enemy. Extraordinary means were required to get them to stop fighting. Either their will had to be broken or they had to be killed.

I am sorry that realism in warfare upsets you so. Perhaps you should not participate in wars or warlike activity. You are not sufficiently ferocious. In peacetime that is a virtue. In wartime it is not a good thing. In fighting a war of defense it is absolutely necessary to be without mercy or compassion. In war it is not good enough to sink to the level of the enemy. One must go lower so as to attack them from beneath.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm including the following Wikipedia excerpt about the Japanese bioweapons program under Shiro Ishii so people know what the US was up against:

In 1942, Ishii began field tests of germ warfare agents developed, and various methods of dispersion (i.e. via firearms, bombs etc.) both on Chinese prisoners of war and operationally on battlefields and against civilians in Chinese cities. Some historians[citation needed] estimate that tens of thousands died as a result of the bio-weapons (including bubonic plague, cholera, anthrax and others) deployed. His unit also conducted physiological experiments on human subjects, including vivisections, forced abortions, and simulated strokes, heart attacks, frostbite and hypothermia.

From 1942-1945, Ishii was Chief of the Medical Section of the Japanese First Army[1]

In 1945, in the final days of the Pacific War and in the face of imminent defeat, Japanese troops blew up the headquarters of Unit 731 in order to destroy evidence of the research done there. As part of the cover-up, Ishii ordered 150 remaining subjects killed. More than ten thousand people,[2] from which around 600 every year were provided by the kempeitai,[3] were subjects of the experimentation conducted by Unit 731. These were called by Ishii and his peers maruta (丸太) "logs," a reference to their view of subjects being inert, expendable entities, or is possibly related to the cover story told to locals that the facility contained a sawmill.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS, I have quite different views than Bob, but I think you mischaracterize his position. I think he wants to stay out of war completely or slaughter the enemy no holds barred. He often posts provocative positions because he wants other Americans to take threats in war extremely seriously and to not have any illusions about it.

Well, I am not really sure why he says the things he does - that's anybody's guess. :) But to openly suggest that we should slaughter women and children sounds like mental illness to me. WWII was an example of what can happen when war gets out of control. It starts out with military targets but ends up with just mass murdering even innocent women and children. That this happens is bad enough but to actually adopt it as a policy is just plain lunacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS, I have quite different views than Bob, but I think you mischaracterize his position. I think he wants to stay out of war completely or slaughter the enemy no holds barred. He often posts provocative positions because he wants other Americans to take threats in war extremely seriously and to not have any illusions about it.

Well, I am not really sure why he says the things he does - that's anybody's guess. :) But to openly suggest that we should slaughter women and children sounds like mental illness to me. WWII was an example of what can happen when war gets out of control. It starts out with military targets but ends up with just mass murdering even innocent women and children. That this happens is bad enough but to actually adopt it as a policy is just plain lunacy.

GS,

I don't agree with Bob's solution, but it isn't what you suggested it was, to glorify war. In any case, I don't believe it is justified. I do believe Truman was justified in dropping the A-bombs. What the US needed in World War 2 was an immediate,unconditional surrender from the Japanese. The US had the experience of fighting the same war over again in Europe, that wasn't going to happen again.

Jim

Edited by James Heaps-Nelson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

I don't agree with Bob's solution, but it isn't what you suggested it was, to glorify war. In any case, I don't believe it is justified. I do believe Truman was justified in dropping the A-bombs. What the US needed in World War 2 was an immediate,unconditional surrender from the Japanese. The US had the experience of fighting the same war over again in Europe, that wasn't going to happen again.

Jim

I'm curious as to why you say needed as opposed to wanted? I know very little about the history over there but is it possible some terms could have been negotiated? Why did it have to be unconditional surrender?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

I don't agree with Bob's solution, but it isn't what you suggested it was, to glorify war. In any case, I don't believe it is justified. I do believe Truman was justified in dropping the A-bombs. What the US needed in World War 2 was an immediate,unconditional surrender from the Japanese. The US had the experience of fighting the same war over again in Europe, that wasn't going to happen again.

Jim

I'm curious as to why you say needed as opposed to wanted? I know very little about the history over there but is it possible some terms could have been negotiated? Why did it have to be unconditional surrender?

GS, why should the US have negotiated terms with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death march? If anything the US was too kind. The reason it needed to be an unconditional surrender was that a new constitution needed to be written for the country and a complete deShintoizing of the Japanese government undertaken.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

I don't agree with Bob's solution, but it isn't what you suggested it was, to glorify war. In any case, I don't believe it is justified. I do believe Truman was justified in dropping the A-bombs. What the US needed in World War 2 was an immediate,unconditional surrender from the Japanese. The US had the experience of fighting the same war over again in Europe, that wasn't going to happen again.

Jim

I'm curious as to why you say needed as opposed to wanted? I know very little about the history over there but is it possible some terms could have been negotiated? Why did it have to be unconditional surrender?

GS, why should the US have negotiated terms with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death march? If anything the US was too kind. The reason it needed to be an unconditional surrender was that a new constitution needed to be written for the country and a complete deShintoizing of the Japanese government undertaken.

I don't think that's really why this -- the call for unconditional surrender -- happened. I think that goes back to the mindset of the FDR Administration and its ideology -- and not what was necessary here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS,

I don't agree with Bob's solution, but it isn't what you suggested it was, to glorify war. In any case, I don't believe it is justified. I do believe Truman was justified in dropping the A-bombs. What the US needed in World War 2 was an immediate,unconditional surrender from the Japanese. The US had the experience of fighting the same war over again in Europe, that wasn't going to happen again.

Jim

I'm curious as to why you say needed as opposed to wanted? I know very little about the history over there but is it possible some terms could have been negotiated? Why did it have to be unconditional surrender?

GS, why should the US have negotiated terms with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death march? If anything the US was too kind. The reason it needed to be an unconditional surrender was that a new constitution needed to be written for the country and a complete deShintoizing of the Japanese government undertaken.

I don't think that's really why this -- the call for unconditional surrender -- happened. I think that goes back to the mindset of the FDR Administration and its ideology -- and not what was necessary here.

You're right Dan, I don't know why the Truman administration decided on its course of action, only why an unconditional surrender was necessary for the best post-war governmental outcome of post-war Japan.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GS, why should the US have negotiated terms with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the Bataan Death march? If anything the US was too kind. The reason it needed to be an unconditional surrender was that a new constitution needed to be written for the country and a complete deShintoizing of the Japanese government undertaken.

I don't think that's really why this -- the call for unconditional surrender -- happened. I think that goes back to the mindset of the FDR Administration and its ideology -- and not what was necessary here.

You're right Dan, I don't know why the Truman administration decided on its course of action, only why an unconditional surrender was necessary for the best post-war governmental outcome of post-war Japan.

I think the call for unconditional surrender started with the FDR Administration. The Truman Administration merely carried this over and does not seem to have been making a radical change in policy here.

Regarding this being necessary, despite the motives for it, I doubt it. In other words, I don't think unconditional surrender was the best course of action. Also, the post-war outcome was to basically set-up a fascist client state for the US. I don't think this was the best possible outcome and I think, too, it set up the US subject population to be involved in East Asian politics and affairs up until today. Why, e.g., did Korea matter to Americans (or anyone outside that region) in 1950? Why were people being forced to pay for and serve in a military adventure there -- something that continues to this day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

We don't know what a conditional surrender would have meant, but a resurgent Japan would not have been at all palatable. It was the Japanese ideology that worshipped the emperor to the death that was dangerous. A conditional surrender would have left that ideology in place.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dan,

We don't know what a conditional surrender would have meant, but a resurgent Japan would not have been at all palatable. It was the Japanese ideology that worshipped the emperor to the death that was dangerous. A conditional surrender would have left that ideology in place.

Jim

I have come to the conclusion that the use of atomic bombs was necessary. I think that unconditional was also necessary. Let us not forget that Japanese Army officers tried to overthrow the government and arrest the Emperor to prevent his giving his speech announcing the acceptance of the Potsdam declaration.

There were war crime trials that lead to execution of Tojo for one. There was also a Japanese general in the Philippines who was also executed. The Emperor was not tried even through some countries did want to try him. MacArthur felt the Emperor was necessary for a successful occupation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now