11/20   The Germans had the V1/V2 cruise missile and the Japanese had germ and
        chemicals. Rather than bombing London with traditional explosives
        and incendiaries, why didn't they borrow germ/chemical technologies
        on the Brits?
        \_ Oh ignorant one of history, Hitler fondly remembers being attacked
           by chemicla weapons in WWI as measily Corporal and that's one of
           the reasons why he didn't do the same.
        \_ At the end of the war, pounded from all sides, the Axis were
           anything but monolithic.  I am guessing there simply wasn't enough
           communication between Germany and Japan by the time Hitler became
           desperate enough to seriously consider 'miracle weapons' like
           toxins and germs.  Furthermore, even if Japan agreed to make
           available to Germany the results of its germs/toxins programs, there
           would be staggering logistical difficulties in moving the required
           materials to Germany.  Japan had a hard enough time moving oil
           and essential supplies through American bombers and ships.
             -- ilyas
        \_ they needed to have insurance (Nukes) first so there wouldn't be
           any severe retaliation from nukes dropped on Germany.
        \_ chemical warfare has never been really effective and germ warfare
           is very difficult to do right and there's always the worry that
           some bug you release will come back and wipe you out, too.  so
           even if they could've done it, neither was a good plan.
           \_ on battle field, true.  against civilian, you would be suprised
              how effective it is on reducing population.  Japanese at the
              had enough anthrex to kill entire world's population, I heard
              \_ no.  effective dispersal is *very* difficult.  it comes down
                 to this: if you need to get a person into the chemical or germ
                 zone to have an effect, it is cheaper to just bomb them.  if
                 it is some brutal pathogen that spreads easily then you can
                 get wiped out by it, too.  anthrax is a really shitty mass bio
                 weapon, btw.
                 \_ This must be emphasized. Even in WWI, gas attacks were
                    effective primarily because of weather conditions and that
                    soldiers had to stay where they were, in low-lying areas,
                    so they wouldn't get shot. Wind, perciptation, temperature
                    all affect the effectiveness of chem/bio weapons.
                    \_ They'd be even more effective in the case of a high tech
                       force fighting a low tech one, but the western
                       hight-tech armies have sworn to not use them.  Which
                       is a pity considering that most of their battlese these
                       days seem to be against vastly inferior tech-wise
                       opponents. The ineffectiveness of chem weapons in WWI
                       was more one of stupid generals not taking proper
                       advantage of them.  The first use of Chlorine at Ypres
                       caused a breach in the French lines that the Germans
                       didn't bother to exploit.  No weapon is effective in
                       incompetant hands.
                       \_ are you saying they'd be a good weapon against
                          civilians today?  in WWII in London?  it's still
                          way easier to just bomb someone.
                       \_ Ah, I'm guessing you're a "destroy-the-village"
                          kinda guy.
                          \_ when the enemy combatantants are indistinguishable
                             from the village, and/or are supported by the
                             village, is the distinction not blurred?