I think it's well understood now that the Nazis could've been defeated by a few stern words and perhaps a spell on the naughty step. That wouldn't have done old adolf any harm growing up..... would it....eh....eh! stuart :hmm: :doh: _________________

I think we need to remember that in 1940, Hitler was hoping he could secure peace with the British Empire, so his order to avoid bombing cities should be seen in that context. Also bear in mind he saw the British as "fellow Aryans" in contrast with his perception of other groups as "untermenschen". WDP - It was Admiral Lord Lewin, Chief of the Defence Staff (ie the top military man in the UK) Staff during the Falklands War. I cannot find a reference for the quote, but I recall it being widely published around the same time as that conflict. I would imagine the comment was a reference to conventional warfare, as we had nukes and Argentina didn't, but we did not use them. Your example seems a little too hypothetical, since the major powers never actually faced each other directly during the Cold War. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/obituary-admiral-of-the-fleet-lord-lewin-1076155.html

Cornet, as with many things the Germans were the first to implement 'terror' or area bombing as a part of their war plan, beginning with the WWI Zeppelins & the subsequent Blitz on London (there's a marvellous book called "The First Blitz" on this subject which I'll pop up a review of in a few days), but even that just followed on from their Naval bombardments of North Sea towns & such atrocities as the destruction of the Medieval Library of Louvain in Belgium in 1914. That's not to say that the British weren't keen to retaliate in kind against German cities, but they didn't really get going on the same scale in WWI. In the 1930's a lot of air power enthusiasts (Dochet, Mitchell & the like) claimed that there would be aerial devastation on a grand scale within days of the outbreak of war - the UK was expecting 250,00 dead within 48 hours from German mass bombing attacks, including the use of aerial gas bombs. Civilian morale was 'bound' to collapse in such circumstances. In reality, as we now know such attacks didn't occur, at least initially; and when they did they were much less effective than predicted, due to the limited technologies of the time. It took the USAAF's firebombing raids on Japan in 1945 to inflict such horrendous casualties on a civilian population & even then it didn't cause a collapse of the Japanese war effort. However there is a long catalogue of German attacks on population targets before the allies retaliated to any significant extent - Guernica, Warsaw, Rotterdam, London, Coventry & other British towns, Belgrade etc. Until 1940 the RAF wasn't allowed to strike even industrial targets in Germany - firebombing the Black Forest was prohibited as it "was private property"....... Rotterdam was arguably a valid tactical target, but the Dutch were already negotiating a surrender when the German bombers struck. To be fair they had been ordered to turn back but the first wave never received the order - the second wave of aircraft in fact did abort their mission. Of course the RAF was also woefully ill-equipped to undertake such mass raids until 1942 & this no doubt played a significant role in the lack of effective retaliation until then but thereafter the German cities did suffer similarly to to the British & other nations. It was 'total war' after all & the Germans never had any compunction about starting it...... As to gas warfare, all major combatant nations kept significant stockpiles in WWII & it was really only the fear of retaliation that stopped the Germans from using it - the allies generally had a 'No First Use' policy although there were contingency plans to use Mustard Gas against German invasion sites if Sealion had ever been launched. The Japanese do appear to have used gas warfare to a limited extent in China.

Returning to the original theme of poisoned darts, does that mean the employment of certain S E Asia native tribes against the Japanese was a war crime? And what about "Clicky Ba"?

Thanks for that link, Ronan. That quote seems to tie in nicely with his requests about the General Belgrano. I'm not sure why the major powers needed to face each other to use those weapons. Wouldn't the lack of retaliation in kind make it easier to deploy them ? Instead of sending sortie after sortie against Thanh Hoa using conventional weapons they could have leveled the bridge (and surrounding area) with a small nuclear weapon. Then again, they could have leveled Hanoi in the same way.

I hope you're just playing devils advocate there Will you apocalyptic madman :) They could've levelled Hanoi using conventional weapons, but they didn't. They could've destroyed the dykes and killed hundreds of thousands south of Hanoi, but they didn't. There were certainly people in the USAF who were calling for it but were overuled. It was a rerun of MacArthur in Korea. WMD cannt be used in limited warfare or you risk unlimiting it if you know what I mean.

Can a house sink? I can understand the sentiments of what DC says. Moderation is difficult when you're at the sharp end and have to make difficult decisions in difficult circumstances. There's no question that warfare is unpleasant and horrible things sometimes happen. That doesn't mean that anything goes though, we should still aspire to clean warfare even if it is a myth.

After witnessing first hand the savagery that man can and does inflict on others, I have come to the conclusion that we have forgot that we are just animals in clothing with a veil of civility, and we will revert to individual and small group savage behaviour when desperation/the idea we wont be answerable for it kicks in. War/fighting, isnt honorable, although we try to make it "nicer" especially to non combatants/ injured and prisoners, nor is it fair, fun or agreeable, its downright nasty, vicious, destructive and terrifying. I wish there was no need for people like myself, but the reality is that someone will always use force to get what they want if they can get away with it, and someone has to be there as a deterence or ready to meet force with force. I dunno, maybe I`ve become to brutal in my outlook, and it seems to get worse when I know I am going away again. Its like I now know to turn the "nice pleasant guy next door" off and turn on the "unfeeling son of a bxxxh" on

I'm speaking of civilian impressions, not strategy, which none-the-less doesn't apply to tactics. Maneuver or attrition doesn't matter in the example at all, as either way you're still under fire from a target you're not allowed to reply to.

The point wasn't that it has to be maneuver or attrition -- those are just the two endpoints on a spectrum of methods; the point is that there are a variety of ways to engage the enemy. Some rely on pressuring the civilian population (bombing civilian populations, raping and pillaging, etc.), some rely on avoiding the civilian population (precision bombing, surgical special ops strikes, etc.). There are rules; there are limits; there are consequences. The reason you're not allowed to fire into a mosque/school is because the point of warfare is to break the enemies will to fight, not to stoke their resolve to continue. War is an extension of policy and is not an end unto itself ... if you want perpetual war, if you are conducting war for war's sake, go ahead and attack the mosque/school. If you want the war to end and for your side to be victorious, limits are a necessity.

Spoken like a true armchair general.