WW2 Poison Dart
Lifted from the BKC forums: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8119653.stm

" To our modern sensibilities it seems shocking and there's a real sense of viciousness about this weapon " What as opposed to a bullet in the head or shrapnel? Douchebags lol

We were dealing with one of the most malevolent enemies in world history what did they think we should use?

I noticed the bit about killing people without damaging property - guaranteed to generate moral outrage from the chattering classes. Remember the reaction to the neutron bomb in the 1980s, designed to stop the hordes of Warsaw Pact tanks without rendering Europe uninhabitable? Good comment Purps - here's what Churchill had to say on the matter (this is the memo usually cited as evidence he ordered the gassing of the Kurds): Winston S. Churchill: departmental minute (Churchill papers: 16/16) 12 May 1919 War Office I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas. We have definitely adopted the position at the Peace Conference of arguing in favour of the retention of gas as a permanent method of warfare. It is sheer affectation to lacerate a man with the poisonous fragment of a bursting shell and to boggle at making his eyes water by means of lachrymatory gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes. The moral effect should be so good that the loss of life should be reduced to a minimum. It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected.

Ronan, as I read it Churchill is advocating the use of non-lethal gas, certainly on a greater scale than crowd control with teargas and with greater potential for casualties but without any intent to kill large numbers. As for sensibilities , take the public image of the weapons of the Great War. Which one is regarded as the most insidious weapon ? The machinegun that mows down row upon row of charging soldiers ? The artillery that blows up scores of soldiers with a single hit ? The poison gas that asphixiates or blinds as it creeps into the trenches ? Bullets and explosions have the appearance of delivering a quick death. A loud crack, a man falls dead. That's how people expect them to work. Despite the agony of a stomach wound or the slow death of lungs burst by overpressure, that is not regarded as their main effect. Poison weapons, chemical or biological, on the other hand cause choking, convulsions and twitching muscles,.. the effects are expected to be gruesome and although they might kill relatively quick, they are regarded as slow and relentless killers.

I'm against the use of chemical weapons, despite Mr. Churchill's considered opinion. But I was left wondering if you're going to just use the same compound in a dart, why not just use the damn gas. The dart would seem to make the gas dramatically less likely to find its target while retaining all the terror. Needles should be banned in warfare. No one likes to be stabbed with a syringe, especially if you're not expecting it.

I had a guy in my training platoon who didn't mind firing any type of gun, but was opposed to hand grenades, as being to impersonal.

When the pin is out, Mr Grenade is not our friend. WDP - Yes, he was actually advocating the use of non-lethal gas on villages in mountain valleys, where the contours would hold the gas in the inhabited areas rendering them temporarily uninhabitable. Cornet - During Gulf War 1 there was revulsion expressed in the British newspaper The Guardian (or it might have been its Sunday version, The Observer) at the tactic used by tanks of driving over infantry foxholes and slewing the tank round to one side to use the weight of the vehicle to collapse the trench and bury the occupants.

"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.