Why are chemical weapons worse than conventional weapons?

[Starbuck]

That is the point. You don't know what you don't know.

Actually, I think I've got a pretty good handle on what was going on in the world at the time we dropped the bombs. Again, please tell me where I've stated something inaccurate.

You weren't even aware of basic mission details from the bombing.

 

[Jerry]

The M-16 and M-4 are chambered for the 5.56 mm (Remington .223) cartridge that is based upon the Remington .222 which was designed for shooting ground hogs.

For 48 years U.S. Marines and even many soldiers have been bitching and complaining being sent into combat with a rifle chambered for a cartridge designed for shooting small varmints.

And we're still complaining today. A drill Sergeant told us that we have women in the service to thank for the military getting rid of the .45 in favor of the 9mm, too.

 

[Starbuck]

And we're still complaining today. A drill Sergeant told us that we have women in the service to thank for the military getting rid of the .45 in favor of the 9mm, too.

As the husband of a veteran, and friend plenty of female veterans, I am happy to report that your Drill Sergeant was telling you a tall-tale.

 

[Jack Hays]

Actually, I think I've got a pretty good handle on what was going on in the world at the time we dropped the bombs. Again, please tell me where I've stated something inaccurate.

You weren't even aware of basic mission details from the bombing.

The basic mission details were/are utterly insignificant. I have tried to point you to the important decision drivers. You declined to learn. Fair enough. Be happy in your ignorance.eace

 

[Starbuck]

The basic mission details were/are utterly insignificant. I have tried to point you to the important decision drivers. You declined to learn. Fair enough. Be happy in your ignorance.eace

The mission details are quite important to the discussion at hand, as they clearly illustrate the incapabilities of the Japanese military at the time that we dropped the bombs. I've also pointed out, with no specific rebuttal, that the overall circumstances surrounding the end of the war in the Pacific theater were as such to render the decisions to either drop the bombs or invade the Japanese mainland strategically without merit.

Reading one book is not really refusing to educate myself, especially when the information is readily available elsewhere.

That aside, I'm definitely not happy in my ignorance. We dropped a bomb and killed hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason. I personally hate that the United States has that on its record.

 

[Jack Hays]

The mission details are quite important to the discussion at hand, as they clearly illustrate the incapabilities of the Japanese military at the time that we dropped the bombs. I've also pointed out, with no specific rebuttal, that the overall circumstances surrounding the end of the war in the Pacific theater were as such to render the decisions to either drop the bombs or invade the Japanese mainland strategically without merit.

Reading one book is not really refusing to educate myself, especially when the information is readily available elsewhere.

That aside, I'm definitely not happy in my ignorance. We dropped a bomb and killed hundreds of thousands of people for no good reason. I personally hate that the United States has that on its record.

The book in question is regarded by those most immersed in the topic as the definitive, debate ending treatment. It brings into play much data that was previously unavailable. As I wrote previously, you do not know what you do not know, and you are ( and I mean this kindly) ignorant.

 

[beerftw]

Why are chemical weapons worse than conventional weapons?

I know, I know, on the surface it seems like a ridiculous question. I heard it asked on a radio talk show a few days ago. It was asked in an interesting way.

If you had to articulate and answer, how would you explain why chemical weapons are worse than conventional weapons.

FWIW: The answer given was something along the lines of, "Well, because everybody agrees they are." I don't believe that even begins to address the question.

well some chemical weapons and nerve agents are capable of killing far more people faster than conventional military weapons.

but in reality the chemical weapon that caused severe damage in ww1 can be made by anyone who actually attended science class,hence why household cleaners have warnings about mixing them with other cleaners.

 

[APACHERAT]

And we're still complaining today. A drill Sergeant told us that we have women in the service to thank for the military getting rid of the .45 in favor of the 9mm, too.

That was the same story I heard back when the U.S. military replaced the .45 with a pea shooter.
The women serving in the military couldn't handle the .45.

 

[Starbuck]

It brings into play much data that was previously unavailable.

After reading a very extensive review and exempt from the book, it appears that this book is primarily concerned with weighing invasion against bombing.

I don't think the author D. M. Giangreco, didn't even consider the notion that we didn't have to do either. Like I've already stated, the bombing was obviously less harmful to our military than any invasion, but he doesn't seem to paint a picture where either was actually necessary. I don't think that he's really revealing anything that wasn't known. . . aside from possibly some statistical details about casualty estimations.

Even Maj. Gen. Graves B. Erskine, as quoted in the book, states that winning wasn't in question.

As I wrote previously, you do not know what you do not know, and you are ( and I mean this kindly) ignorant.

Conversely, I'd argue that I know everything that I need to know on the topic and as of yet you haven't pulled one detail from the book which was heretofore unknown by me. . . and significant with this particular discussion.

However, I do appreciate the kind words.

 

[Starbuck]

That was the same story I heard back when the U.S. military replaced the .45 with a pea shooter.
The women serving in the military couldn't handle the .45.

And even then it was complete nonsense.

 

[Jack Hays]

After reading a very extensive review and exempt from the book, it appears that this book is primarily concerned with weighing invasion against bombing.

I don't think the author D. M. Giangreco, didn't even consider the notion that we didn't have to do either. Like I've already stated, the bombing was obviously less harmful to our military than any invasion, but he doesn't seem to paint a picture where either was actually necessary. I don't think that he's really revealing anything that wasn't known. . . aside from possibly some statistical details about casualty estimations.

Even Maj. Gen. Graves B. Erskine, as quoted in the book, states that winning wasn't in question.




Conversely, I'd argue that I know everything that I need to know on the topic and as of yet you haven't pulled one detail from the book which was heretofore unknown by me. . . and significant with this particular discussion.

However, I do appreciate the kind words.

As you wish. After Pearl Harbor and all the cost thereafter, the US certainly was not going to stop short of victory. There were only two paths to victory. We chose the shorter, more humane path.eace

 

[Starbuck]

That's my point exactly. . . there was no strategic reason to either drop the bomb or invade.

It was all about human ego, and for that we dropped two bombs that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Pearl Harbor was a military target, by the way.

I guess that goes back to the OP for this thread. CBR weapons are what people use when strategic victory just isn't good enough.

 

[Starbuck]

King Arthur should've poured boiling water on the Black Knight, rather than simply crossing the bridge.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's my point exactly. . . there was no strategic reason to either drop the bomb or invade.

It was all about human ego, and for that we dropped two bombs that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Pearl Harbor was a military target, by the way.

I guess that goes back to the OP for this thread. CBR weapons are what people use when strategic victory just isn't good enough.

The Japanese would never have surrendered without invasion or the bombs.

 

[Jack Hays]

That's my point exactly. . . there was no strategic reason to either drop the bomb or invade.

It was all about human ego, and for that we dropped two bombs that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Pearl Harbor was a military target, by the way.

I guess that goes back to the OP for this thread. CBR weapons are what people use when strategic victory just isn't good enough.

After all the loss and all the sacrifice, begun by a Japanese attack, no resolution short of victory was appropriate. The Japanese sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. The remarkable thing about he US was our restraint.eace

 

[Lord of Planar]

Well, they're indiscriminate, for one thing. I know, cluster bombs and white phosphorus and land mines and a bunch of other evil inventions used by amoral psychopaths on populated areas are indiscriminate, too, so maybe it's a question of who's committing the atrocity.

That's why this excessive use of cruise missiles and drones by the current administration are intolerable.

 

[Starbuck]

After all the loss and all the sacrifice, begun by a Japanese attack, no resolution short of victory was appropriate. The Japanese sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind. The remarkable thing about he US was our restraint.eace

I don't think that it is as simple as all of that. More went into starting that war than simply them attacking Pearl Harbor, it wasn't neither unexpected nor unprovoked.

Those bombs did two things:

1. Killed lots of innocent people.
2. Proved that the human ego knows no real bounds, up to and including the immoral killing of innocent people.

 

[Starbuck]

Strategy didn't enter into the only, that's right only, use ever of atomic bombs in a war capacity.

It was done out of spite and ego, pretty sad testament to human character.

 

[Jack Hays]

I don't think that it is as simple as all of that. More went into starting that war than simply them attacking Pearl Harbor, it wasn't neither unexpected nor unprovoked.

Those bombs did two things:

1. Killed lots of innocent people.
2. Proved that the human ego knows no real bounds, up to and including the immoral killing of innocent people.

I could not disagree more. Pearl Harbor was both unexpected and unprovoked. It was inexcusable. All the deaths thereafter are on the Japanese. And then there were the millions of dead in China. An aggressive, criminal empire had to be expunged. The bombs were by far the least destructive way to do that.eace

 

[Starbuck]

Do you actually know what prompted Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, a target of perceived significant strategic value?

They didn't just wake up and decide to provoke the only other major naval power in the Pacific one morning. . . we knew it was coming and we knew exactly why.

I'm not saying they were right for attacking us or instigating the all-out-war that followed, but one thing they didn't do. . . was target hundreds of thousands of innocent American Civilians. That never actually happened.

At the very least we could've stopped the war when we knew full well that we had strategically won and defeated the Japanese military to a point of insignificance. That would've saved all of those lives.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Strategy didn't enter into the only, that's right only, use ever of atomic bombs in a war capacity.

It was done out of spite and ego, pretty sad testament to human character.

I will disagree. I agree with the belief that conventional war would have lasted a very long time, with too many more deaths. Like others point out, the Japanese culture is a war based one. Their concept of honor left little choice, but to show how futile it would be not to surrender.

 

[Starbuck]

I could agree with you, if they had actually posed some sort of military threat at the time of the attack.

Again, by the time we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan was wholly incapable of continuing with the war. Sure they didn't want to surrender, but what harm could it have done to let them continue being defiant, especially where we had destroyed their navy, grounded their planes, cut off their supplies, pushed out of mainland asia (with the help of some allies) and otherwise rendered them incapable of even defending themselves from four unescorted bombers.

 

[rathi]

That was the same story I heard back when the U.S. military replaced the .45 with a pea shooter.
The women serving in the military couldn't handle the .45.

That is quite typical from insecure losers who spout sexist bull**** and need a "big caliber" to make them feel special. Children can shoot a 1911.
My kid shooting 1911 in .45 caliber. - YouTube

Women tend to prefer 1911 over the M9 because the single stack magazine means the grip is easier to hold with smaller hands. The real reason for the switch was likely caliber standardization with NATO, everyone else used 9mm.

 

[Deuce]

That's why this excessive use of cruise missiles and drones by the current administration are intolerable.

Cruise missiles and drones are far more discriminate than chemical weapons. How on earth are you thinking you can make this comparison?

High-precision modern weaponry results in fewer civilian casualties than any other weapon or tactic that exists. If you can't tell a difference between gassing an entire town, carpetbombing an area with conventional dumb bombs, and a GPS-guided missile that only hits a single building, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[APACHERAT]

That is quite typical from insecure losers who spout sexist bull**** and need a "big caliber" to make them feel special. Children can shoot a 1911.
My kid shooting 1911 in .45 caliber. - YouTube

Women tend to prefer 1911 over the M9 because the single stack magazine means the grip is easier to hold with smaller hands. The real reason for the switch was likely caliber standardization with NATO, everyone else used 9mm.

Unless your a grumpy old man today who was around during the late 70's and 80's and was paying attention to what was being said off the record when REMF's wanted to dump the M-1911 A-1, lets put it this way, the U.S. Air Force was saying that to many of the females weren't able to master the M-1911 A-1.

The .45 ACP M-1911 A-1 is a very hard pistol to master. But once mastered it's probably the best combat pistol ever produced. Even males have a problem mastering the M-1911 A-1 chambered for the .45 ACP cartridge.

The reason the 9MM Parabellum was adopted was uniformity and logistics, because that's what all of the other NATO countries have adopted.

Why did Barreta win the contract ? Because Colt and Smith and Wesson dropped out of the competition because they developed a better combat service pistol but with quality comes the cost of manufacture. Barreta was the lowest bidder.

As we have seen, American SOP forces dumped the 9 mm pea shooter soon after and either went back to the M-1911 A-1 or another pistol chambered for the .45 ACP.
The Marine Corps has already announced that it's going back to the .45 ACP M-1911 A-1.

Re: "big caliber":

It's part of the American culture and tradition. Unlike the Europeans, America was always a big bore rifle and pistol nation. The 45/70, .30 cal Krage, 30-06, .308 Winchester (7.62), the .45 Long Colt and .45 ACP.

Why did the U.S. military adopt a varmint cartage (Remington .223/5.56 mm) for the AR-15 and M-16's ? It was the U.S. Air Force who pushed for the U.S. Army to adopt the AR-15 which would evolve into the M-16 A-1. The 30-06 M-1 Garands were to much of a rifle for airmen to handle so they adopted the M-1 Carbine. But the M-1 Carbine was really just a replacement for the .45 pistol during WW ll and didn't get the job done when trying to protect air base perimeters.

Yes, there are some women who prefer the .45 M-1911 A-1 over the pea shooter, it feels like to them they have a penis between their legs.