It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did German and Japanese civilians deserve to be attacked with WMD during WW2?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Bombing of Dresden - first account of a firestorm resulting from extended bombing.

Operation Gomorrah - 700 planes, 40000 people dead, 250000 houses destroyed in one bomb rush.

More bombings

This does count as WMDs.




posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 07:56 AM
link   
a reply to: ManFromEurope

It does? Since when do bombing runs count as WMD's? WMD stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction. You will notice that "weapon" is singular, NOT plural. The accumulation of many small weapons to create mass destruction isn't a WMD. Otherwise we'd be able to just call "war" a WMD and that just dilutes the meaning of the acronym.

The only WMD's that existed during WWII are the two bombs dropped in Japan. Do not try to reinvent history by altering terminology.
edit on 9-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



It does? Since when do bombing runs count as WMD's? WMD stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction. You will notice that "weapon" is singular, NOT plural. The accumulation of many small weapons to create mass destruction isn't a WMD. Otherwise we'd be able to just call "war" a WMD and that just dilutes the meaning of the acronym.


well yes it does really.
wiki cause it's fast,Weapon of mass destruction


Coined in reference to aerial bombing with chemical explosives, it has come to distinguish large-scale weaponry of other technologies, such as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear. This differentiates the term from more technical ones such as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear weapons (CBRN).


in the above quote, aerial bombing is linked in blue, which takes you to Strategic bombing and so is chemical explosives, which takes you to Explosive material

and here is the first time it is ever thought to have been used.

The first use of the term "weapon of mass destruction" on record is by Cosmo Gordon Lang, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1937 in reference to the aerial bombardment of Guernica, Spain:
Who can think at this present time without a sickening of the heart of the appalling slaughter, the suffering, the manifold misery brought by war to Spain and to China? Who can think without horror of what another widespread war would mean, waged as it would be with all the new weapons of mass destruction?



edit on 9-9-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


ETA: from the WMD Wiki,

Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:
(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.[29]
Military
For the general purposes of national defense,[30] the U.S. Code[31] defines a weapon of mass destruction as:
any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
a disease organism
radiation or radioactivity[32]
edit on 9-9-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:30 AM
link   
An article that I read fairly recently sheds some really interesting light on the decision to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There's a lot of compelling statements from some high-up military and political figures that are quite eye-opening. Check it out over at www.globalresearch.ca...
edit on 9-9-2015 by Revolvacron because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, because it was a single attack with massive deaths and damages.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

The US was the first and only nation to use atomic weapons against another nation. It is priceless that the US wants to deplore other nations for developing WMD's or their own nuclear weapons.

Who should lead by example?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



It does? Since when do bombing runs count as WMD's?


Since Laos-it was bombed into submission.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Did Guernica and Chinese civilians deserve to be attacked with WMD by Germany and Japan?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

That wasn't my point. Yes, WMDs can be dropped from planes (the ones in Japan were dropped from them). I'm saying that many small bombs dropped on an area doesn't equal one WMD. By this same illogical argument you could say that the entire operation of Germany bombing England was a WMD. WMD's are supposed to be singular devices that cause wide scale death and destruction (and like your link pointed out are chemical, biological, or nuclear in nature).

You do realize that your links talked about the bombs being chemical in nature right?
edit on 9-9-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Its called collateral damage...and is part of war. Whats not to understand? No one deserves to die that way....but it's what it is. Sooooo.....



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: soulpowertothendegree

why derail the thread here?
Just tell me if civilians deserved to be intentionally targeted.
That is the question.


the deliberate killing of innocents has occurred in every war in mankind's history. one would have to be mentally unbalanced to say it was "deserved"....that's why war is so horrendous, mankind should do everything they can to avoid it.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass


Did German and Japanese civilians deserve to be intentionally targeted in WW2?


Absolutely not! But neither did British, Russian, Chinese and other allied populations. Since the allies (with the exception of Stalin's Soviet Union) did not practice systematic genocide, I believe the better side won.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You do realize that your links talked about the bombs being chemical in nature right?


yes i do, plus if you read all the links i posted. they also talk about other bombs and bombing tactics. you do realize that the term was coined in 1937 after the germans bombed Guernica.


As German air chief Hermann Goering testified at his trial after World War II: "The Spanish Civil War gave me an opportunity to put my young air force to the test, and a means for my men to gain experience." Some of these experimental tactics were tested on that bright Spring day with devastating results - the town of Guernica was entirely destroyed with a loss of life estimated at 1,650
The Bombing of Guernica, 1937


also from the wiki link i posted in my last Strategic bombing



Development of the term "terror bombing"
German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and other high-ranking officials of the Third Reich[12] frequently described attacks made on Germany by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and the United States Army Air Forces (USAAF) during their strategic bombing campaigns as Terrorangriffe - terror attacks.[nb 1][nb 2] The Allied governments usually described their bombing of cities with other euphemisms such as area bombing (RAF) or precision bombing (USAAF), and for most of World War II the Allied news media did the same. However, at a SHAEF press conference on 16 February 1945, two days after the bombing of Dresden, British Air Commodore Colin McKay Grierson replied to a question by one of the journalists that the primary target of the bombing had been on communications to prevent the Germans from moving military supplies and to stop movement in all directions if possible. He then added in an offhand remark that the raid also helped destroy "what is left of German morale." Howard Cowan, an Associated Press war correspondent, filed a story about the Dresden raid. The military press censor at SHAEF made a mistake and allowed the Cowan cable to go out starting with "Allied air bosses have made the long awaited decision to adopt deliberate terror bombing of great German population centres as a ruthless expedient to hasten Hitler's doom." There were followup newspaper editorials on the issue and a longtime opponent of strategic bombing, Richard Stokes, MP, asked questions in the House of Commons on 6 March.[13]


also, do you remember the phrase that was used as a substitute by members of the bush admin and British during the early years of the War on Terror. Weapons of mass terror.

from the WMD link i posted ,


Testimony of one such soldier expresses the same viewpoint.[26] For a period of several months in the winter of 2002–2003, U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz frequently used the term "weapons of mass terror," apparently also recognizing the distinction between the psychological and the physical effects of many things currently falling into the WMD category.


and from the same wiki,

Gustavo Bell Lemus, the Vice President of Colombia, at 9 July 2001 United Nations Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects, quoted the Millennium Report of the UN Secretary-General to the General Assembly, in which Kofi Annan said that small arms could be described as WMD because the fatalities they cause "dwarf that of all other weapons systems – and in most years greatly exceed the toll of the atomic bombs that devastated Hiroshima and Nagasaki".[27]


then you have the civil defense and US criminal law concerning terrorism definitions.
again from the same wiki,

Within U.S. civil defense organizations, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as: (1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.[29]



For the purposes of US criminal law concerning terrorism,[35] weapons of mass destruction are defined as: any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[36]


also if you go to the wiki you will see that the FBI also includes a whole long similar list of things that can be used a a WMD.

you also do know that the boston bomber was charged with using a WMD that was made from firecrackers and a pressure cooker don't you.

so it is plain to see that any thinking person, should come to the conclusion that the term was first applied to the bombing in spain by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and that although not said the same, instead they used other euphemisms when referring to terror bombings and weapons of mass terror were used. and that the term WMD covers a whole host of weapons not just Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear weapons, and that the term through the years was used more as a political term, than the correct term CBRNE used by the military, although now the military have adopted WMD.


plus i dare say that the use of, weapons of mass destruction or weapon of mass destruction is correct depending on how many were used.
as in the case of the Tsarnaev brothers, they used two weapons of mass destruction instead of just one.
edit on 9-9-2015 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass


Did German and Japanese civilians deserve to be intentionally targeted in WW2?


Absolutely not! But neither did British, Russian, Chinese and other allied populations. Since the allies (with the exception of Stalin's Soviet Union) did not practice systematic genocide, I believe the better side won.


I gotta support this right here!!

Besides Stalin, the allies were angels compared to the axis... Minus Italy.
Sorry Italy but mousillini was a douche idiot, that did little but beg at the furers table for scraps.

In comparison, every axis soldier captured was treated quite well considering the situation... Allies captured... Americans and British were treated like kings by the Nazis, compared to captured Russian soldiers, and the US and UK POWs weren't treated very well at all.

Still I would have rather been an American In Nazi custody than any soldier captured by Japan.... They were really really really really bad to pows.... Especially the Chinese.....

It is hard to talk to a modern day Japanese citizens and understand how they could be so cruel... Modern day Japanese folks are just awesome, loving hard working caring folks...

Hard to believe the change that can occur in so short a time!!



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

I only know awe for him.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Unless of course they wanted it against the will of the people.
www.blacklistednews.com...



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:21 PM
link   
So the Allies should not have bombed Germany, but it was okay for Rotterdam, London, Birmingham, Coventry, to be bombed? Plus Polish cities, such as Warsaw, Stalingrad, (renamed Volgagrad), they were okay?
The japanes rape of the Chinese coastal cities, that was okay?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
It's not about what's right. It's about survival.

Thought experiment:

You and your family stand across from another, innocent family. The first group to push a button wins freedom, but the losers are eaten alive by rats. If no one pushes the button everyone is melted in acid.

What would you do and why would it be "right"?



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 03:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: ManFromEurope

It does? Since when do bombing runs count as WMD's? WMD stands for Weapon of Mass Destruction. You will notice that "weapon" is singular, NOT plural. The accumulation of many small weapons to create mass destruction isn't a WMD. Otherwise we'd be able to just call "war" a WMD and that just dilutes the meaning of the acronym.

The only WMD's that existed during WWII are the two bombs dropped in Japan. Do not try to reinvent history by altering terminology.


The terminology and definition for WMD didn't even exist back then. Creating mass destruction with minimal effort was the goal of every nation.

However if you want to classify the weapons of that era with modern terminology you shouldn't forget to include the biological weapons that Japan launched against the US with balloons though they were not very successful their germ bombs had a bit more success though the attacks were not on the US. You should look into the dealings of Unit 731 as far as their development and testing. The chemical weapons they developed and used. They made over 800,000 chemical shells for combat most of which were used against the Chinese.

Also Typhus may have been used to a limited extent on the Eastern Front.



posted on Sep, 9 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass
Lets see,

German invades Blitzkrieg Europe, Locked up and persecuted the Jews, building weapons of mass destruction just to start, bombing England and everyone else.

Japan attack us at Pearl Harbor as a prevent strike to keep us out of south east Asia while they attack everyone else.




top topics



 
7
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join