• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should chemicle weapons be illeagal

Should chemical weapons remain illeagal

  • Total voters
    29
notquiteright said:
Whats this we crap? I didn't realize you served much less in the Pacific in WWII. What regiment?

Victors get to say what was a war crime and what isn't. As it stands many nations are trying to eliminate land mines or at least put a self destruct device in them. Napalm is now classified as a chemical weapon and Willy Pete is not labeled for use on humans- though the tongue in cheek answer is it was used on the enemy's web gear.

Most of the chemical weapons we think of- Mustard, phosgene, VX, and of late sarin are true horror weapons and their use in WWI lead to banning them as soon as practical. As a young man being trained to protect myself from the rather impressive varieties of chem weapons the Warsaw Pact had and the very feeble methods we had, no MOPP gear back them, sticky fatigues kept in a special wrapper and some sticks to scrape the crap off and a powder puff to neutralize the residue I am double D damn glad 'we' wised up and refrain from chem weapons.

As far as bringing them back... the 'we' who ponder that are not the 'we' who will face it.
Click to expand...

It's called historical context. On your chem weapons stand though it is my opinion that all weapons that kill and maim are horror weapons. I do seem to be in the extreme minority though as per usual. "It aint easy bein me" :lol:
 
DaveFagan said:
You'd have to be incredibly naïve to think that the Corporate Chemical manufacturers were not aware of the extremely toxic nature of their product. I'm just as sure the military knew and US soldiers fall into the category of collateral damage. I don't see any high moral ground demonstrated by our Nation in any of these campaigns/misadventures. I do see lies, obfuscation, deceit, treachery, chaos, death, destruction, etc. and all producing huge profits for The Corporate Welfare Network known as the Military Industrial Complex to the current tune of $700 billion per year.
Click to expand...

You must be a fan of Smedley Butler.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
It's called historical context. On your chem weapons stand though it is my opinion that all weapons that kill and maim are horror weapons. I do seem to be in the extreme minority though as per usual. "It aint easy bein me" :lol:
Click to expand...

Ahhh historical context or as we call it, the mouse in pocket rhetoric. :lol:

I can see from your civilian only but very ahhh militant attitude all weapons are useful with the only goal winning the war, though there would be a huge difference between the firebombing of Dresden and widespread dropping of gas on the German civilians. I can see how to your untrained eye all weapons are horror weapons, but to me there is a huge difference between mustard gas and HE.

and yeah it sure ain't easy being you. :peace
 
He was twice awarded the Medal of Honor.
 
MoSurveyor said:
I wasn't aware of any negative connotation of 'Yank'.
Click to expand...

There isn't.

"Jap" on the other hand, is the term invented in WWII to mean "someone who is not fully human, so we don't have to feel bad about killing them." We have invented a similar term in most wars, "Hadj" being the latest. We weren't killing people in Europe, either. We were killing "Krauts." In Vietnam, it was "slants" and "gooks."

It's a psychological defense against the horrors of war.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Used in context I think "jap" is acceptable. We didn't incinerate young Japanese men in bunkers, we incinerated Japs.
Click to expand...

Ah, so the Nazis didn't kill Jews, they only murdered Kikes?

Got it.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
All this talk about Obama's red line in Syria has me wondering just why we have outlawed the use of chemical weapons. Do we not fight wars to win? We used nukes in Japan, we incinerated people in Dresden and Japs were burned alive with flame throwers on islands across the pacific theatre. Napalm is not a pleasant way to die and a bullet in the guts is just a bit agonizing so what's the deal with chemical weapons?
Click to expand...

I miss the old and reliable M2A1-7 flame thrower. Four gallons of napalm or gasoline was an affective weapon.
But in 1978 in the name of political correctness the libs took away the Marines and Army's flame throwers and told them to win the enemies hearts and minds instead.
All we have to look at the American casualty rates since 2009 in Afghanistan to see how winning their hearts and minds is working out.

Reading2006000001804.jpg
 
iliveonramen said:
Mainly because if one country is going to use them then the opposing force will use them. There's no benefit to using them...all you do is open a Pandora's box that makes warfare even uglier and brutal than it already is.

So there's no benefit...just like the US and the USSR throwing nukes at one another. In the end everyone loses.
Click to expand...

Actually retaliation with chemical weapons is, in many cases, unlikely. As weapons they are inefficient. There are better psychological weapons, better anti-personnel weapons, better area denial weapons.
 
APACHERAT said:
I miss the old and reliable M2A1-7 flame thrower. Four gallons of napalm or gasoline was an affective weapon.
But in 1978 in the name of political correctness the libs took away the Marines and Army's flame throwers and told them to win the enemies hearts and minds instead.
All we have to look at the American casualty rates since 2009 in Afghanistan to see how winning their hearts and minds is working out.
Click to expand...

Once again your knowledge of history is sadly lacking and distorted. Flamethrowers where declared obsolete because their primary target, pillboxes and fortified emplacements where largely no longer in use and where easier to destroy using modern weapons. Shaped charges killed flamethrowers, not political correctness.
 
Redress said:
Once again your knowledge of history is sadly lacking and distorted. Flamethrowers where declared obsolete because their primary target, pillboxes and fortified emplacements where largely no longer in use and where easier to destroy using modern weapons. Shaped charges killed flamethrowers, not political correctness.
Click to expand...

In 1978 which weapon that delivered a shaped charge was carried by a rifle platoon ?

Now the M-2 back packed flame thrower was used in Vietnam, even though I personally never seen it used, but I did see many M-48 flame tanks in Vietnam.

Before the use of CS gas (tear gas) was internationally outlawed by the military in 1993, the word came down in Nam that Marines and soldiers were no longer authorised to use CS when clearing out VC tunnels. Seem some libs back home had a problem with using CS, it was politically incorrect. It would be up to the tunnel rats to clear VC tunnels.

There's also another problem with using explosives during a fire fight, "danger close."
 
Dittohead not! said:
There isn't.

"Jap" on the other hand, is the term invented in WWII to mean "someone who is not fully human, so we don't have to feel bad about killing them." We have invented a similar term in most wars, "Hadj" being the latest. We weren't killing people in Europe, either. We were killing "Krauts." In Vietnam, it was "slants" and "gooks."

It's a psychological defense against the horrors of war.
Click to expand...
I was unaware of any negative connotations to the term 'Jap' but having done a little research you're somewhat correct in that Jap became derogatory in WWII (it did exist before that time but didn't have a negative connotation). I also researched 'Yank' and in many circles it is also derogatory.


Yes, it's very common to assign dehumanizing names to ones enemy and that comes out even in particularly nasty interpersonal disagreements.
 
APACHERAT said:
In 1978 which weapon that delivered a shaped charge was carried by a rifle platoon ?

Now the M-2 back packed flame thrower was used in Vietnam, even though I personally never seen it used, but I did see many M-48 flame tanks in Vietnam.

Before the use of CS gas (tear gas) was internationally outlawed by the military in 1993, the word came down in Nam that Marines and soldiers were no longer authorised to use CS when clearing out VC tunnels. Seem some libs back home had a problem with using CS, it was politically incorrect. It would be up to the tunnel rats to clear VC tunnels.

There's also another problem with using explosives during a fire fight, "danger close."
Click to expand...

The first shaped charge man portable weapon was the Panzerfaust. Do I need to tell you when that was first used?
 
Dittohead not! said:
There isn't.

"Jap" on the other hand, is the term invented in WWII to mean "someone who is not fully human, so we don't have to feel bad about killing them." We have invented a similar term in most wars, "Hadj" being the latest. We weren't killing people in Europe, either. We were killing "Krauts." In Vietnam, it was "slants" and "gooks."

It's a psychological defense against the horrors of war.
Click to expand...

The term "Jap" is nothing more than the shortening of Japanese and was used going back to the 1800's. Look at any old newspapers. It was never considered to be a derogatory term until some white beard scratching liberal decided it was in the early 1970's. The same with "Nip" which is the shorten name for Nipponese.

The word "gook" has been used by U.S. Marines going back to the Barbary Pirate wars (1801-1805) and is a noun, (person place of thing) that is strange or foreign. It's U.S. Marine slang.The island of Guadalcanal during WW ll was called a gook island not because of the Melanesian natives or the Japanese troops who occupied the island but the island was strange to the Marines and soldiers because of the heat, humidity, mud, rain and the jungle. Completely different than Brooklyn New York. But in the 1970's the PC police decided that the word was derogatory and actually believed that "gook" only referred to Asians ignoring that U.S. Marines referred to Mexican soldiers during the Mexican-American War as gooks.
 
Oct2012X9MST1945Sep2.jpg.....
 
Redress said:
The first shaped charge man portable weapon was the Panzerfaust. Do I need to tell you when that was first used?
Click to expand...

Americans were never issued the Panzerfaust, the closest thing we had to it during WW ll was the bazooka and later on the 3.5" rocket launcher.

Shaped charges may be affective on armor but not against concrete structure. A shape charge used against a tank for example, it's not the explosive charge that kills the soldiers inside the tank but the deterioration of the armor inside the tank that disintegrates the armor and shrapnel from that armor wounds and kills those inside and detonates the tanks ammunition and ignites the tanks fuel.

On concrete is will only blow a hole in the concrete structure. The weapon of choice for reinforced structures is either an armor piercing 16" , 8" or 6" naval gun not a howitzer. If an AP round isn't available a HE round with a steel plug with a delayed fuse is used. Howitzers lack kenetic energy unlike naval guns or the old self propelled 175 MM gun.
 
Yes. Any weapon that cannot be used in a defensive way should be illegal. Chemical weapons cannot be limited to attackers, but will harm innocent people.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
All this talk about Obama's red line in Syria has me wondering just why we have outlawed the use of chemical weapons. Do we not fight wars to win? We used nukes in Japan, we incinerated people in Dresden and Japs were burned alive with flame throwers on islands across the pacific theatre. Napalm is not a pleasant way to die and a bullet in the guts is just a bit agonizing so what's the deal with chemical weapons?
Click to expand...
Seriously, you have to ask this on a public forum? You seriously don't understand that the indiscriminate killing of civilian populations is a war crime? Even LeMay recognized that what he did with the fire-bombing and use of the the nukes were war crimes, the only reason they were not prosecuted was due to their being the victor. Both German & Japanese military personnel were prosecuted for war crimes including the use of chemical weapons.

It just baffles me that in this day and age you would have to ask a question like this. The poll results should tell you something.
 
Lakryte said:
Yes. Any weapon that cannot be used in a defensive way should be illegal. Chemical weapons cannot be limited to attackers, but will harm innocent people.
Click to expand...

"Rule of Thumb" when using chemical weapons:

Stick your finger in your mouth to wet your finger and hold it up to see which way the wind is blowing.
 
APACHERAT said:
"Rule of Thumb" when using chemical weapons:

Stick your finger in your mouth to wet your finger and hold it up to see which way the wind is blowing.
Click to expand...
typical Marine, doesn't know his thumb from a finger.
 
APACHERAT said:
Americans were never issued the Panzerfaust, the closest thing we had to it during WW ll was the bazooka and later on the 3.5" rocket launcher.

Shaped charges may be affective on armor but not against concrete structure. A shape charge used against a tank for example, it's not the explosive charge that kills the soldiers inside the tank but the deterioration of the armor inside the tank that disintegrates the armor and shrapnel from that armor wounds and kills those inside and detonates the tanks ammunition and ignites the tanks fuel.

On concrete is will only blow a hole in the concrete structure. The weapon of choice for reinforced structures is either an armor piercing 16" , 8" or 6" naval gun not a howitzer. If an AP round isn't available a HE round with a steel plug with a delayed fuse is used. Howitzers lack kenetic energy unlike naval guns or the old self propelled 175 MM gun.
Click to expand...

So much wrong information. Ever see Saving Private Ryan(Or The Longest Day? Or The Big Red One?)? They is a weapon against a bunker there called a Bagalore Torpedo. It uses(and is still in use) a shaped charge. Mortars as well now use shaped charges. Shaped charges are very effective against concrete structures.

Do you find it embarrassing that a liberal knows more about the military than you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom