Thread: How Would The U.S. Respond To A Chemical Weapon Attack On U.S. Troops?

Originally Posted by politicalcenter

If chemical weapons were used against the U.S. troops what should the response be?

just curious.

Depends who by and what context.

For it to happen the USA troops, would be getting up to no good at some nations border. Say it was Russian or chinese or did the fatal deed. Would a nuclear stand off be the correct responce? or a swift apology.

Originally Posted by politicalcenter

If chemical weapons were used against the U.S. troops what should the response be?

just curious.

As I said before, nothing. Just like the response in 1991 when they were used on them.

It has been known for decades that most of the cases of "Gulf War Syndrome" were caused by Iraqi chemical weapons (mostly sarin). But this was ignored at the time because of what the mandated response would have been. And I expect if it happens again, it will have the same response.

Originally Posted by GeneralZod

Depends who by and what context.

For it to happen the USA troops, would be getting up to no good at some nations border. Say it was Russian or chinese or did the fatal deed. Would a nuclear stand off be the correct responce? or a swift apology.

You have to understand the cncept of reciprical response. This has been a long-standn policy of the United States, going all the way back to before World War II. Use a "Weapons of Mass Destruction" against us, and we will respond with the same kind of weapon. Originally, this was only applicable to chemical weapons, but later was expanded to all such weapons.

Now in the 1970's, we dismantled and destroyed our chemical weapons programs. After that, the only response mandated for a chemical or biological weapon was a nuke. Obviously that is something that is not likely to happen, so there was no response and the evidence of it was swept under the rug.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/311605
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3979975.stm

And if you question if this is real, think on this. We were in Kuwait and the surrounding area for less then a year, yet had thousands of cases of "Gulf War Syndrome". We have been in the area now for over 20 years, where is the Gulf War Syndrome this time? We should have tens of thousands of cases, but we do not. And every symptom of "Gulf War Syndrome" was also a symptom of Sarin, Organophosphates, or Mustard Gas.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

You have to understand the cncept of reciprical response. This has been a long-standn policy of the United States, going all the way back to before World War II. Use a "Weapons of Mass Destruction" against us, and we will respond with the same kind of weapon. Originally, this was only applicable to chemical weapons, but later was expanded to all such weapons.

Now in the 1970's, we dismantled and destroyed our chemical weapons programs. After that, the only response mandated for a chemical or biological weapon was a nuke. Obviously that is something that is not likely to happen, so there was no response and the evidence of it was swept under the rug.

http://digitaljournal.com/article/311605
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3979975.stm

And if you question if this is real, think on this. We were in Kuwait and the surrounding area for less then a year, yet had thousands of cases of "Gulf War Syndrome". We have been in the area now for over 20 years, where is the Gulf War Syndrome this time? We should have tens of thousands of cases, but we do not. And every symptom of "Gulf War Syndrome" was also a symptom of Sarin, Organophosphates, or Mustard Gas.

That is a rather silly policy.

Which will prompt a nuclear war, if by accident or design one of the main nuclear powers did it. Also with the accident view of friendly fire when nato and other forces get confused.

It is very fortunate that policy has not ben used as does really need to be rethought.

Also which further causes ponder. Another topic explains the fire in a nuclear american sub. Now this policy of Wmd. Does it take into account massive failures like that.

What if that sub was russian or chinese and leaking nuclear waste over american shores or military strong holds. Is that classed as an attack. Does the Washington govement respect the letter of obscure policy and start flooding bejing or moscow with chemical gas.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

As I said before, nothing. Just like the response in 1991 when they were used on them.

It has been known for decades that most of the cases of "Gulf War Syndrome" were caused by Iraqi chemical weapons (mostly sarin). But this was ignored at the time because of what the mandated response would have been. And I expect if it happens again, it will have the same response.

What a load of tom tit!

Yes the US government will hand out billions of dollars for damage inflicted by Saddam, giving your soldiers Gulf War Syndrome!

Bollocks!

The damage was done by two methods.
1. Depleted Uranium inhaled by troops, that stuff you love to defend so much! Just look at the deformed kids....your a bloody hero!
2. The injections the troops received to protect them against Sarin! Oooh sarin Rumsfelt sold Saddam in the first place.... to murder Iranians! Ooh and American trained Kurds in Iraq!
Aye I remember Bush and his parisites bragging about the American train soldiers who Saddam couldn't attack because of the no fly zone..... Saddam used American made Sarin Gas and destroyed them all!
Well he learned these techniques from the best...... the same parasites!

Regards
Highlander

Originally Posted by Mushroom

You reject 5 references, because Wikipedia is one of them?

And yes, there is nothing new or earth shattering in what you have provided. Yes, Japan had offered to surrender before, multiple times. Thatis not news, nor particularly interesting. The surrender terms were not acceptable to the Allies. Heck, the claim that they tried to surrender though the Soviet Union must not have even impressed hem very much, since they themselves declaired war against Japan themselves.

What Japan had tried multipe times was a negotiated surrender. However, all of the combined Allied Powers had jointly stated that they would accept nothing but full and unconditional surrender. Period. No status quo ante bellum, no leaving dispted territories while remaining in control of others, nothing but unconditional surrender.

Now if you can provide some reference that clearly states that Japan offered Unconditional Surrender, then we will talk. Your references give no real information, just hints. And do no even contain the actual terms offered by Japan. And the fact that they wanted terms should show that they were not acceptable.

The Tribune? Not good enough? Freedom of Information????

But then...its so difficult to get anything but propaganda from your outlets!

And yet....... and yet,,,,,they accepted "THE SAME TERMS" after your lot dropped the nuclear bombs!
The emperor had the same position and the unconditions surrender of the Japanees armed forces!
The same offered by Russia at Potsdam!

Regards
Highlander

Originally Posted by Lex Naturalis

How Would The U.S. Respond To A Chemical Weapon Attack On U.S. Troops?

No doubt with a knee-jerk response in a completely irrational manner.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

No doubt with a knee-jerk response in a completely irrational manner.

Chemical weapons are a pretty serious thing.

Originally Posted by GeneralZod

That is a rather silly policy.

No, it is actually a very sane policy. Remember, the option is to either tie in all WMDs together, or the US resumes it's stockpiling of chemical and biological weapons again.

And it also ties all of them into the concept of MAD to help prevent their use in the first place.

As for your last sentence, do not try and strectch things so far out of contact with reality that they are blatently silly. If a sub is off the shores of the US, it would be recovered. Nothing new here, you are simply trying to start a pissing contesst that I am not going to play with. Talk to me about reality, not man on the moon stuff.

Ooooh......Mr Mushroom

another link just for you......

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2012/08...ear-terrorism/

You can hide..... But I will always make an attempt to correct the deceit and outright lies taught to you by you're corrupt AIPAC owned senators and owned media!

Regards
Highlander