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

Discussion in 'Nuclear, Chemical & Bio Weapons' started by Dayton3, Jan 1, 2012.

  1. mikezila

    mikezila New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2009
    Messages:
    23,299
    Likes Received:
    250
    Trophy Points:
    0
    that's a negative, Ghost Rider-the US Army never had anything but tactical nukes.
     
  2. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Pershing IIs were "tactical" only in the sense of range restrictions (less than 2,000 miles).

    But their warhead size (400 kilotons IIRC) and accuracy were both effectively strategic weapons capable of destroying the most hardened Soviet targets.
     
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We have no nuclear artillery. We have not had any since the last of them were decomissioned in 1992

    So you are incorrect. We had nuclear ordinance that small, 20 years ago.
     
  4. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How would the US respond?

    The exact same way it responded the last time this happened.

    It is no real secret that in 1991, Iraq used chemical weapons against US and coalition forces. Chemical detection equipment from multiple countries were constantly going off during that war, and many units were in their chemical protective suits for days at a time. And they were used in rockets, artillery, as well as in mines.

    http://www.gulfweb.org/report/riegle1.html

    However, the decision was made to not "go nuclear" on Iraq, but instead destroy their military through conventional means. So any alerts or findings were either downplayed or censored. And we have over a quarter million veterans who got "Gulf War Syndrome" to one degree or another.

    So how would they respond? With nothing. Unless the other nation started to be stupid and admit to the world what they are doing. Then who could say what would happen.
     
  5. Giftedone

    Giftedone Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2010
    Messages:
    63,708
    Likes Received:
    13,464
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good thing the response was mild. If we bankrupted the country with a mild response where would we be with a heavy response ??
     
  6. Lex Naturalis

    Lex Naturalis New Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2011
    Messages:
    701
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah, your going to get flagged by Homeland Security for asking that question.
     
  7. HillBilly

    HillBilly New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    4,692
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    0
    :hmm: well now Dayton if such an attack is here on US soil , , I predict death and destruction on a lethal scale for the terrorists , and the nation that sponsored them , , and the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be authorized and used with great discretion & planning , , but they will be used . .a US Tomahawk missile will easily carry a tactical nuke , , 10 miles of un-scheduled sunrise sand turned to glass for several hundred years . .
    but , that's just my opinion .
     
  8. phil white

    phil white Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    869
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    18

    We nuked Japan over the Batan Death March. Why not?
     
  9. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,312
    Likes Received:
    6,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No.

    We used nuclear weapons against Japan in order to force them to surrender without an invasion being necessary.
     
  10. mrmeangenes

    mrmeangenes New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2012
    Messages:
    286
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Amazing how much people have revised history - or tried to !
    Thank you for resisting the revisionist impulse !

    Yes, I DO remember when the 2 atomb bombs were used -and how elated we Americans were that we would not have 400,000 more casualties to contend with.

    I remember the gold stars in the windows of even our small town. the " Gold Star Mothers" , who rode uneasily in open cars during parades and bond drives.

    Two cousins served in North Africa ; another was a chaplain on a Red Cross ship sunk by a Japanese submarine-whose skipper apparently wanted to afford the crew a little practice with the deck guns.

    Yeah: we cheered at the news !
     
  11. highlander

    highlander Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Speak about being niave.
    Why on earth do your think the |US has nuclear weapon on other nations soil? If America fires a weapon retaliation will only come back to the nation that fires it where the missile is based!
    Japan in WW2 offered peace terms at the potsdam conference prior to the nuclear bombs being dropped, but they still dropped them....the genocidal bastards were in power even then! Will America use nuclear weapons......of course the degenerate bastards would without a seconds thought for the consequences as they would be protected from any return actions....you on the other hand....wouldn'tl!


    Ooooh and one small point......why should American soldiers be halfway around the world in the first place?

    Regards
    Highlander
     
  12. highlander

    highlander Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Problem is its not a hypothetical country....there are men women and children your talking of wiping from the face of the map!


    You surprise me, mmmmm and what tennants do you follow?

    Regards
    Highlander
     
  13. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yea, sounds nice. To bad you are being factually accurate but not honest.

    Yes, Japan did offer peace terms. Status quo ante bellum. Essentially, the US and it's allies would leave all territories held by Japan prior to the outbreak of hostilities (including China and Korea), no occupation, no demands for reparations, no war crimes trials, just pretend it never happened.

    And it was not just rejected by the US. Thsi rejection was one of the main casus belli for the Soviet Union to enter the war. Every single Allied power (including France and the UK) rejected this "peace term" as unacceptable.

    History, it is a nice thing to know.
     
  14. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    We should try and avoid this debate. It's happened so many times we know exactly how it will occur. We'll be quickly swarmed by the anti-nuke crowd with their poor understanding of history and arrogance. We'll end up posting several pages worth of posts with numerous sources debunking their inaccuracies, at which point most of them will suddenly disappear, with one or two determined hardliners sticking around to argue semantics.
     
  15. highlander

    highlander Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What a load of tom tit...perhap you should read historical facts...not comics!

    Japan offered unconditional surrender...at the potsdam confrence at THE END of the war in europe, on condition the emperor was not impeded is status..... Your reprobates....only yours said no and dropped the nuclear bombs........then accepted the same conditions offered at the Potsdam conference!

    As I said..... read historical facts not your AIPAC dogma!

    Regards
    Highlander
     
  16. highlander

    highlander Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What is it they say....its all in the name!

    Regards
    Highlander
     
  17. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just to prove your ignorance, I suggest you read the response to the Potsdam Declaration by the Prime Minister of Japan, Kantaro Suzuki.

    I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence. We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.

    Now if the Prime Minister outright rejects the declaration, how can this ever be considered acceptance?

    Please give references. Quotes by the Prime Minister or Emperor that were made between Potsdam and Nagasaki. Unless you can verify your claim, it is nothing but coprolite, and should should then be mokusatsu.
     
  18. highlander

    highlander Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oooh its all in the name.....Can you please give me a link.....to your submission.

    Its quite clear the offer made by Russia (with Authority from the Japanees high command) at the Potsdam conference to those attending.....your degenerate's wanted to use weapons of mass destruction...but what changes?

    The declaration was made by the USA.... an agreement was reached by those attending and a unnamous declaration was made......what has that to do you
    id 10 t with the offer of surrender!

    You cannot hide! I have no need to verify anything as historical facts speak for themselves!

    But I don't read comics nor do I listen to AIPAC fox news and the likes!
    Regards
    Highlander
     
  19. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No verification, no proof, just more coprolite and nothing to back it up.

    Thank you again Mr. Troll.

    [​IMG]
     
  20. highlander

    highlander Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And yet...id 10 t...you cannot give a link......easy to ignore the facts when dogma floats one's boat!

    Revel in the degenerate abortionists you call your a government.....AIPAC bought and sold..... pity you haven't the gumption to know any different! But then fox news isn't going to tell you your leaders are the same as the degenerates that went before......Torture...secret prisons, assassination squads, legal genocide...aye its a pity you know no better! Shame on you and those that rule your nation!

    But you have a nice day....ya hear!

    Sorry am I mocking the afflicted? I do apologise!

    Highlander
     
  21. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Trollish behavior once again.

    I did not provide a link, but I provided the exact response to Potsdam, as given by Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki. Here, let me give it to you again:

    I consider the Joint Proclamation a rehash of the Declaration at the Cairo Conference. As for the Government, it does not attach any important value to it at all. The only thing to do is just kill it with silence. We will do nothing but press on to the bitter end to bring about a successful completion of the war.

    How about some links? I did not think them important, since WWII historians know this as much as most people know of FDRs "Day of Infamy" speech, and would not have thought that a link to that would be required either. But since you insist, here are several:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#Japanese_reaction

    http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=107202.30;wap2

    http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/ke...nagasaki/potsdam-press-release_1945-07-28.htm

    http://books.google.com/books?id=aS...e Declaration at the Cairo Conference&f=false

    http://books.google.com/books?id=SC...e Declaration at the Cairo Conference&f=false

    Now I can continue, but hopefully I have made my point. Now kindly give us a single historically documented reference that proves that the Japanese Government intended to surrender. Because the Prime Minister was the public head of state, and he certainly had no intention of doing it.

    Reference and validation fail.
     
  22. highlander

    highlander Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Bollocks...wikipedia?

    I have already Clement Attlee's book which stated Russia offered the same terms before the nuclear bombs were dropped! But Truman accepted the same terms after..... and Attlee was there.....not wiki!
    http://www.ibiblio.org/pha/war.term/093_03.html
    Have a nice day!

    Highlander
     
  23. highlander

    highlander Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2008
    Messages:
    5,104
    Likes Received:
    26
    Trophy Points:
    0
  24. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,496
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    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.
     
  25. politicalcenter

    politicalcenter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2011
    Messages:
    11,101
    Likes Received:
    6,786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If chemical weapons were used against the U.S. troops what should the response be?

    just curious.
     

Share This Page