English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Isn't Fallujah a city of 200,000 men, women, children? Did the Prussians and Germans consider Paris a "battlefield" in 1871 and 1940? Did the Germans consider London a "battlefield" in 1940? Did Bin Laden consider the Twin Towers a "battlefield"?

2007-04-25 05:13:59 · 9 answers · asked by mouthbreather77 1 in Politics & Government Military

Did FDR, Truman, LeMay, consider Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki "the battlefield"?

2007-04-25 05:15:48 · update #1

9 answers

Regarding the battlefield question: the answer is YES. All of those were part of the modern battlefield. In fact, the military has come up with a special term for it, to reflect the unique characteristics of the fight in a built-up area -- MOUT -- Military Operations in Urban Terrain.

White phosphorus is a terrific and terrible weapon in the arsenal of all nations on the Earth. Yep, WP can start fires, and it can deny terrain, and it can hurt people if it gets on their skin. No debate there. But that doesn't qualify it as "chemical warfare". And it does produce a marvelously thick and opaque smoke very rapidly -- that is its primary use on the field of battle. The incendiary effects (and that is what a WP round is classed as -- an incendiary) are just a bonus.

And if you suddenly have become so much more qualified to determine where smoke and flame are classified in the military pantheon of weapons than a guy who has spent more than thirty years in the field, then why are you posting your rubbish here on Yahoo, and not participating in the debates at the OPCW in the Hague? (Oh, and BTW -- I helped to write some of the language of the Chemical Weapons Convention, so I think I know whereof I speak. How 'bout you, numbskull?)

2007-04-25 06:18:40 · answer #1 · answered by Dave_Stark 7 · 2 0

Yes they did consider Paris as a battlefield and any history book will refer to it as such.

Much of WWI were fought in French Towns. Each one is called at the time and in history books a "battlefield".

Hiroshima and Nagasaki had no battles fought there. They were bombed, just like we carpet bombed Europe and the Germans Carpet bombed everything. H & N had huge military installations at them and that's what we were aiming at, but due to technology at the time you just dropped a whole bunch of bombs and hoped you hit your target. The Nuke ensured we hit all our targets with a single bomb.

Any other questions?

2007-04-25 05:17:32 · answer #2 · answered by Burn It 4 · 5 1

smoke grenades and artificial smoke are composed of white phosphorus, and while it has incendiary properties, it is primarily used for obscuration, or identification. If you are concerned it is being used as a weapon, you should understand there are many more effective weapons used, and if the intent is to burn a building, well thermite is a far better choice, or mogas, or a daisy cutter does an excellent job of burning targets.

2007-04-30 19:33:02 · answer #3 · answered by doug_mulqueen 1 · 1 0

You gotta remember the tactics the Iraqi fighters are using. They are actually changing the way we fight modern wars with their disgusting tactics of bringing the battlefield into the towns. They aren't brave enough to face us in a 'field' so they hide behind children and shoot at us. They hide in hospitals and fire rockets at us. They even stand in the doors of their own mosques to throw grenades at us. And when we defend ourself we look bad.

2007-05-01 10:32:59 · answer #4 · answered by Tom B 2 · 0 0

Yes, they did consider it a battlefield and Bin Laden did see the US as a battlefield.

White phosphorus IS what we use for smoke.

2007-04-25 05:26:04 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 4 1

Battlefield is not a blanket word...it is where a battle was fought.

2007-04-25 21:44:45 · answer #6 · answered by jeeccentricx2 5 · 1 0

Are you equating my service to 9/11? You wonder why vets like myself have become so disenchanted.

2007-04-25 05:23:01 · answer #7 · answered by Centurion529 4 · 3 2

'Those people' are the ones who know what they are talking about.

Maybe you should try listening.

2007-04-25 06:45:34 · answer #8 · answered by MikeGolf 7 · 2 0

Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

2007-04-25 05:21:44 · answer #9 · answered by A Balrog of Morgoth 4 · 3 1

fedest.com, questions and answers