WW2 Poison Dart

"War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it"

So you guys have just given up on the Geneva Conventions?

At my age I just can't get to them any more.

if only my wife were a signatory.

The Geneva Conventions code of conduct, which is a wonderful thing in my opinion, has some, not all mind you, high moral expectations that go against a lot of instincts when your life is in immediate danger, or emotions are high as for instance, you`ve just seen a lot of friends die and the person who killed them then wants to surrender before you kill them. Even signatories to it have flaunted the letter of the rules more than once to win whatever war/conflict they are embroiled in. Thats not taking into consideration individuals who dont know it to the letter(you`d be surprised how many people dont know what they can and cant do as POW`s and/or combatants taking POWs). It basically boils down to "do I want to win and live, or lose and die?" And trust me, most people want to live! As I said, a fantastic ideal to try to live up to, another thing when "real life" gets up and kicks in.

Just wanted to add, generally the vast majority of combatants do try to live up to it, certain regimes and individuals dont care and will totally ignore even its basic tenets.

IIRC Churchill wanted to Gas the V2 launch sites since everything else had failed, and it came down to Ike threatening to quit to put a stop to the plan.

The Geneva Conventions code of conduct, which is a wonderful thing in my opinion, has some, not all mind you, high moral expectations that go against a lot of instincts when your life is in immediate danger, or emotions are high as for instance, you`ve just seen a lot of friends die and the person who killed them then wants to surrender before you kill them. IMO, the most unrealistic is the idea that you must treat PoWs to an arbitrarily high standard, regardless of your circumstances - even to the point of guaranteeing a higher standard of living than your own troops and civil populace. Not only is this often impractical - especially in a long and protracted war and where one side is at an economic disadvantage - it completely penalises the side prepared to take prisoners in the first place. In the 18th and early 19th centuries, the rule was that the PoWs own government remained responsible for their welfare after capture. This generally worked well, deterring massacres and also promoting regular exchanges of prisoners to avoid having to support people who were no longer of any military use. This meant that people did not spend years in captivity as they did in WW1 and WW2, and some subsequent conflicts. The current rules actually encourage the killing of PoWs, especially where one side is poorer than the other and has a massive financial disincentive to keep large numbers of enemy personnel.

1) you don't need the poison, this is what an anti-personnel flechette round is essentially without that and we use those. 2) If you have to fight a war, it is the height of stupidity to fight it with one hand tied behind your back, it merely drags it out and increases casualties on both sides.

2) If you have to fight a war, it is the height of stupidity to fight it with one hand tied behind your back, it merely drags it out and increases casualties on both sides. As one of our former First Sea Lords once said: "All war is madness; but the only madness in war, is moderation."

I'd like to see more weaponry based on pub games. Snooker balls in a football sock, anyone?

2) If you have to fight a war, it is the height of stupidity to fight it with one hand tied behind your back, it merely drags it out and increases casualties on both sides. Robert E. Lee adamantly disagreed. His believe was that there are lines one doesn't cross and there is a point where one acknowledge he's been beaten. Hence, the surrender at Appomattox Courthouse in contravention of Jeff Davis's directives to transition to a guerilla war. Modern warfare is where things get messy -- chemical warfare, concentration camps (thanks ACW!), bombing civilian population centers, and the strategy of 'mutually assured destruction.' Fvck us all for allowing that to happen. 'Win at all costs' is a barbaric, unconscionable mindset. I agree with Ronan that the old system for POWs was better for their welfare, but this 'win at all costs' business means that paroled prisoners-of-war may no longer be trusted to stay off the line. Honor is dead. Edit: added "to transition to a guerilla war" for clarity.

Robert E. Lee adamantly disagreed. His believe was that there are lines one don't cross and there is a point where one acknowledge he's been beaten. Yes, where the enemy can be trusted to accept as honourably. Would he have felt that way about the Nazis? Should we have? Surely it was the "criminal" actions of Grant and Sherman that brought the South to the point of surrender - without those the war could have dragged on for years more, possibly with no conclusion (and no emancipation). .....concentration camps (thanks ACW!)...... Thanks for taking the hit on that one - usually us Brits get the blame for those (Boer War). 'Win at all costs' is a barbaric, unconscionable mindset. Except that the corollaryis to play by the rules and risk losing. No prizes for coming an honourable second, unfortunately. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying you aren't necessarily right.

They used to drop bundles of darts out of planes over troop formations in WW1. When my dad was flying in the FAA they had a modification made to their drop tanks for low level anti personnel attacks – basically the tank was filled with ball bearings which were released in a fan shape spray…

Basically a flying Claymore Mine.

View Full Version: WW2 Poison Dart