+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 68

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

  1. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    Say in a future war, a renewed Korean conflict perhaps, the North Koreans attack U.S. (and ROK) troops with several hundred chemical weapons (nerve gas).

    How would the U.S. respond? I know the U.S. claims that it would respond with nuclear weapons to such an attack as chemical weapons are considered WMDs, but does anyone really think the U.S. is going to start hitting the North Koreans with a bunch of 10-50 kiloton warheads just because of a chemical attack?

    Not to mention the South Koreans and Japanese would probably object to any first use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. regardless of the circumstances.

    so short of nuclear weapons, how does the U.S. respond to a chemical attack?
    Yeah, your going to get flagged by Homeland Security for asking that question.

  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    Say in a future war, a renewed Korean conflict perhaps, the North Koreans attack U.S. (and ROK) troops with several hundred chemical weapons (nerve gas).

    How would the U.S. respond? I know the U.S. claims that it would respond with nuclear weapons to such an attack as chemical weapons are considered WMDs, but does anyone really think the U.S. is going to start hitting the North Koreans with a bunch of 10-50 kiloton warheads just because of a chemical attack?

    Not to mention the South Koreans and Japanese would probably object to any first use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. regardless of the circumstances.

    so short of nuclear weapons, how does the U.S. respond to a chemical attack?
    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 .

  3. Icon8

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    Say in a future war, a renewed Korean conflict perhaps, the North Koreans attack U.S. (and ROK) troops with several hundred chemical weapons (nerve gas).

    How would the U.S. respond? I know the U.S. claims that it would respond with nuclear weapons to such an attack as chemical weapons are considered WMDs, but does anyone really think the U.S. is going to start hitting the North Koreans with a bunch of 10-50 kiloton warheads just because of a chemical attack?

    Not to mention the South Koreans and Japanese would probably object to any first use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. regardless of the circumstances.

    so short of nuclear weapons, how does the U.S. respond to a chemical attack?

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

  4. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phil white View Post
    We nuked Japan over the Batan Death March. Why not?
    No.

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

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dayton3 View Post
    No.

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

  6. #36
    scotland
    Location: Inverness Highlands of Scotland
    Posts: 5,104
    Blog Entries: 2

    Default

    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
    Last edited by highlander; May 21 2012 at 04:01 AM.

  7. #37
    scotland
    Location: Inverness Highlands of Scotland
    Posts: 5,104
    Blog Entries: 2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KSigMason View Post
    I'd turn the hypothetical country into a thing of the past and wipe it from the map.
    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

  8. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    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!
    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.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mushroom View Post
    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.
    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.
    I have no joy in strife,
    Peace is my great desire;
    Yet God forbid I lose my life
    Through fear to face the fire. -Henry Van Dyke

  10. #40
    scotland
    Location: Inverness Highlands of Scotland
    Posts: 5,104
    Blog Entries: 2

    Default

    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

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks