Home

www.history-what-if.com 


Re: Earliest chemical warfare Posted on: Wed, 08 Sep 2010 23:25:15 -0700

On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 21:34:07 +1000, SolomonW
wrote:

>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.

This could easily have been accomplished by the incineration of one or
more Japanese chemical plants in Tokyo.
1038332. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038333. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038334. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038335. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038336. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038337. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038338. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038339. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038340. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038341. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038342. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038343. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038344. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038345. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038346. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038347. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038348. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038349. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038350. Re: Earliest chemical warfare
1038351. Re: Earliest chemical warfare