WW2 Poison Dart

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.

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. I wouldn't say I was right in all circumstances either. Clearly, the Nazis were an exception ... but even then, if we were to stoop to their level and adopt their wanton disregard for life ... what then would we be defending? We'd essentially have become the same thing anyway, thus rendering the war utterly pointless. Although, even the Nazis observed some limits -- iirc they avoided bombing population centers until after the US/UK started the practice. I will leave the door open to being wrong on that point, as I'm certain Britons have a much more informed perspective on the aerial bombing campaigns of ww2. Yeah, when you're fighting psychopaths it's probably a good policy to fight a no holds barred war; but somehow we've managed to rationalize those extraordinary measures and incorporate them into routine practice. Every war, with few exceptions since WW2 has been framed as an all or nothing fight ... which to be honest, is becoming a little tiresome when clearly many of them were just instances of us bullying. Neither the Dominican Republic, North Vietnam Panama, Grenada, Afghanistan, nor Iraq were threatening our sovereignty or to enslave us. Imho, some of these conflicts could have been handled more honorably. Once implemented (even under extraordinary conditions), we just don't seem to have the moral fortitude to set aside reprehensible practices ... the ban on chem warfare is, however, a notable exception.

.....concentration camps (thanks ACW!)...... Thanks for taking the hit on that one - usually us Brits get the blame for those (Boer War). I prefer to acknowledge fault, fix it, and move on. Learning from your mistakes and all that. Idiots here like to characterize it as "Blame America First." Really, it's just supporting accountability ... for everyone, and not setting ourselves above the standard we espouse. Accountability, law and order, stressing equality under the law; it's all part of the same governance tradition.

"Although, even the Nazis observed some limits -- iirc they avoided bombing population centers until after the US/UK started the practice. I will leave the door open to being wrong on that point, as I'm certain Britons have a much more informed perspective on the aerial bombing campaigns of ww2." It started by accident IIRC – Hitler expressly banned bombing cities. However, London was bombed by mistake so the RAF bombed Berlin and so it began…

Ronan, who said that ? Mind you, I have no idea how much influence or insight the Admirality has regarding land warfare but he has a point regarding naval warfare where getting in the first strike may decide the naval war. Yet, I'm not so sure he was right regarding warfare in general. Moderation is a part of warfare, for political, practical or ethical reasons. Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons have been part of US, Soviet, French and British arsenals. If moderation in war is madness, why weren't they used ? Should one disregard civilian casualties at all times and thereby tie the proverbial hand behind one's back or is it better to limit them as much as possible without endangering the task at hand ?

even the Nazis observed some limits -- iirc they avoided bombing population centers until after the US/UK started the practice. I will leave the door open to being wrong on that point, as I'm certain Britons have a much more informed perspective on the aerial bombing campaigns of ww2.Who is actually attributed with the first bombing of civilians? London got bombed during WW1 and we bombed german targets(did we reach berlin during WW1?)I dont think the nazis held back bombing anyone Cornet remember Guernica,Warsaw and Rotterdam.I cant get my head around the Dresden bombing though today its called a war crime but thats todays thinking do you need to view it with a 1940's outlook or should the planners tried to tried to second guess later years public opinion and not gone ahead?

View Full Version: WW2 Poison Dart