To: jmacusa
When I was in South Korea we were told at one point to expect 75% casualties because of these types of weapons.
5 posted on
11/22/2012 5:26:11 PM PST by
driftdiver
(I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
To: driftdiver
No doubt. Todays chemical are not the kind used in the First World War. My late grandfather served in the Untied States First Gas and Flame regiment in WW1. He was wounded three types by gas and had a portion of one lung removed. Only one wound resulted from German gas, the other two were from his own units stuff that blew back on them.
6 posted on
11/22/2012 5:31:12 PM PST by
jmacusa
(Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
To: driftdiver
Typo; meant to say ‘’three times’’.
7 posted on
11/22/2012 5:32:54 PM PST by
jmacusa
(Political correctness is cultural Marxism. I'm not a Marxist.)
To: driftdiver
When I was in South Korea we were told at one point to expect 75% casualties because of these types of weapons.Yep - they told us there were only weapons enough for about 20% of the base because after a first strike that's all that would be left.
60 posted on
11/23/2012 5:17:05 AM PST by
trebb
(Allies no longer trust us. Enemies no longer fear us.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson