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? |