View the H-War Discussion Logs by month
View the Prior Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
View the Next Message in H-War's March 2010 logs by: [date] [author] [thread]
Visit the H-War home page.
From: Abrigon Gusiq <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: REPLY: Weapons--Napalm/Flamethrowers (5 Responses) Date: March 3, 2010 6:32:23 PM EST To: H-NET Military History Discussion List <H-WAR@H-NET.MSU.EDU> Recent article in I believe World War 2, has an article on who used inhuman versus non-inhuman weapons.. Oddly the US used flamethrowers, while the Japanese and Germans did not, or not as much? Flame throwers are alot more effective than Tunnel Rats? But a very brutal weapon. True it is less brutal than Anthrax, Chemical Weapons and Nuclears.. The Japanese I understand was very close to having a nuclear weapon, but was short on raw materials to make it so. And was very close to having antrax and other bio-weapons, with camps in Manchuria where they had tested its effect on Chinese and Allied Prisoners.. I could understand part of why Napalm is on the prohbbited list, is likely in part due to its over use in US/allies movies? Napalm and some soon to be dead human dying from a clinging oily substance, having shades of the later Buddist Monks burning themselves up in Vietnam? The fun of living in a visual instantaneous world? Also I expect the US found other weapons to do much the same job? Or what? Mike Adams Alaska ----- For subscription help, go to: http://www.h-net.org/lists/help/ To change your subscription settings, go to http://h-net.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=h-war -----