Whatever chemical it was, the point still stands. One bomb is not a WMD. A large-scale raid would definitely take on WMD-like properties. Even the raids with conventional bombs would be considered “mass destruction” by today’s standards, since there was little more than a pretense of attempting to avoid targeting civilians.
The M69 incendiary bomb(let), along with the M47 chemical bomb, was the payload for Operation Meetinghouse, the Tokyo firebombing. The M69 was filled with napalm by this stage of the war, though it started out with thermite or magnesium as the fillers. While the M47 is listed by wiki as being filled with white phosphorous, this cite, and the above UXO guide to the M47, mentions that the -2 variant was filled with a jellied gasoline, either IM or NP. I am a bit hazy on the differences between the varied jellied gasolines and oils, but some are thickened with naphthenic acids (the ‘Na’ in Napalm) and some are not. An analysis done by XXI Bomber Command of the initial series of incendiary raids may be found here. This cite, claims the cluster was filled with ‘jellied oil.’ The M19 at the cite refers to the overall bomb; it was a cluster of 36 M69 bombs, and was how the bomb was normally used. The cluster would open up at a given height over the target, scattering the M69 bombs over the area.
I’d have no problem saying the fire bombing raid was a napalm raid.
FWIW, the section of the United States Code that Werekoala mentions is 18 USC §2332(a). From it, we get the following definition for WMD:
Section 921’s definition of destructive device is:
I’d think you’d have a tough time convincing anyone that a .600 Nitro Express is a WMD, and I think they really meant clause (A) in 2332(a). Still, that’s the law. My personal definition for WMD skews more towards the old NBC category, slanted strongly to the N side of the group.
Napalm was developed in 1944, was dropped on Tokyo, and is considered an “incendiary”. Curtis LeMay thought that high level bombing wasn’t getting the job done. The “job” being ending the war quickly. LeMay hoped low level sortis flown at night, with heavier payloads, fewer crewmembers, and no machine guns would convince Imperial Japan to surrender.
If you want to point out the hypocrisies of America’s policies on incendiary weapons like napalm, thermite or white phosphorus (aka WP or “willie pete”), I think you can find a more recent example than a pair of bombs used to end a war that killed more than 60 million people.
Problem with kids. They think they know everything, but even when they may have a point, it’s more often by accident than because they actually know anything.
I suspect we won’t see much more of georgewk10 in this thread.
And why did he capitalize “moral” but not the proper name “The World’s Policeman”?
I’m sorry; I believe I’m of normal intelligence, but I find your posts utterly baffling.
Do you believe that members of this board, in general, are strongly in favor of US military action in Syria? It’s not that apparent to me.
Do you have some reason to believe that the makers of US military policy read posts to this board?
Well consider me educated, I think I pictured napalm being used in a more tactical sense rather than against cities.
OMIGOSH! I hadn’t even considered this before! Why did you keep this to yourself for so long???
Yeah, why the hell did the US ever stick its nose into World War II, anyway?
I think he was talking about mushrooms.
If you ever eat too many Moral Mushrooms you’re gonna have a bad time…
Normally yes. However it can be very effective when your cities are made of paper and bamboo.
True, isn’t that part of the reason the nuclear weapons were so devastating as well? I believe there were several survivors from one of the few brick and stone buildings in Hiroshima, a bank, which was almost directly below the explosion.