Home

www.history-what-if.com 


Re: Earliest chemical warfare Posted on: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 09:50:55 -0700


"SolomonW" wrote in message
news:SwKho.57761$45.932@newsfe29.ams2...
> On Tue, 7 Sep 2010 12:28:45 -0700 (PDT), careysub@... wrote:
>
>> If the allies had decided to use gas in WWII, employing bomber forces
>> to drop it once air superiority was established, which would have
>> enabled establishing instantly lethal concentrations over several
>> square miles at a time, then views on the possible effectiveness of
>> gas today would be different (but it would be remembered even less
>> fondly).
>
> Imagine the effect on the fire bombing of Tokyo if gas had been used by
> the
> allies in the mix.

Yes, although I'd like to see some evidence about that
"instantly lethal concentrations over several square
miles at a time". That sounds like a monumental
weight distributed with exquisite accuracy under such
potentially trying circumstances as night, wind (including
fire storm wind), and even token resistance from the
ground.

1038303. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038304. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038305. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038315. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038316. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038317. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038318. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038319. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038320. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038321. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038322. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038323. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038324. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038325. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038326. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038327. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038328. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038329. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038330. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038331. Re: Earliest chemical warfare