Operation Rolling Thunder

Zipper, I'm not interested in your BS conspiracy theories .

As for the effectiveness of poison gas, IMO not nearly as effective as generally thought.
When it was used in WW1, they knew within 50-100 yards where their targets were, and they blanketed that area with gas shells. or early uses was gas canisters, when the wind was right. Thousands of tons of gas. That is what you don't seem to know, how much gas you have to blanket a area with when you know where your target is.
How much gas would you have to use to kill targets that you weren't sure where they were? How would mountains and wind effect this ?
It takes very little of most poison gases to kill, but it isn't target seeking, you have to blanket the whole area, And the people you want to kill has to breath it. Meanwhile you have to hope the wind doesn't blow it away, or it doesn't roll downhill where it's useless.

Plus I wonder if any gas would even reach the ground in a triple canopied jungle.
Napalm often didn't, but it was still effective because it depleted the oxygen, and people nearby would suffocate.

To blanket large areas of jungle with poison gas would have used vast quantities of gas, impossible to keep secret, and probably a waist of effort too.

tyrodtom said:

Zipper, I'm not interested in your BS conspiracy theories .

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll drop it, but I want to be clear I didn't just pull this out of my rectum.

As for the effectiveness of poison gas, IMO not nearly as effective as generally thought

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think that'd be a good idea. It'd look bad politically as well.

Napalm often didn't, but it was still effective because it depleted the oxygen, and people nearby would suffocate.

Click to expand...

I do remember a chemical compound that the Germans toyed with called Chlorine Trifluoride (ClF3), which was also viewed as a potential rocket oxidizer.

I'm not sure how reliable storage for this stuff would be, but I do remember that the Germans saw it as too dangerous, and NASA gave up on it after a large tank blew up and set damned near everything nearby on fire (including concrete of all things): That said, it reacts with nearly anything including air, water, vegetable matter, humans, even ash (and concrete), as it's actually better at oxidizing than air itself.

It could be stored in certain types of metals by blowing fluorine gas inside the tanking structure, which produced an oxidization layer: The problem is, if the stuff were to become dislodged, all hell would break loose. Fluorine burns brutally, even Halon gas will ignite in the presence of ClF3 (something which is normally an effective fire-retardant).

That said, it would be able to get a forest fire going, even in a jungle: As a bonus, it would produce hydrofluoric acid as a byproduct which, while not all that low in pH, it's highly corrosive, and toxic as fuck (if I recall something like a couple of square inches would be lethal).

Once again we can get into a semantics argument over the exact definition of Poison not to mention that Army Field Manual 27-10, Law of Land Warfare, says "the United States is not a party to any treaty, now in force, that prohibits or restricts the use in warfare of toxic or non-toxic gases, or smoke or incendiary materials, or of bacteriological warfare."
It is also important to note that the United States had been one of the principals of the 1925 Geneva Conference which outlawed the use of asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases. Nevertheless, the State Department eventually sent the Defense Department a memo agreeing that the non-lethal agents were legal but included a long list of stringent limitations on their use.

Now the collision between Politicians and the Pentagon begins. As far as the Military is concerned the answer is either yes or no. Putting nit picking restrictions on weaponry in the midst of a war was simply the State Department kidding themselves. The Military view was simple, when the crunch comes, the Pentagon sets the requirements and State finds the reasons why it's legal.

The United States began equipping the South Vietnamese Army with two of its three standard riot control, or non-lethal, gases in 1962 under the existing Military Assistance Program (MAP). The agents were CN, the standard tear gas used to quell civil disorders, and CS, the newly developed super tear gas. The third riot control agent, DM (adamsite), a nausea-producing gas, did not reach Vietnam until 1964. Riot control gases are described by Army field manuals as agents that "produce temporary irritating or disabling physiological effects when in contact with the eyes or when inhaled. Riot control agents used in field concentration do not permanently injure personnel."

The gases are actually solids that are disseminated as aerosols via grenades/canisters. The first two are agents that have been in the military arsenal for decades. Both CN and DM were invented in the latter days of World War I, and CS was reportedly developed by the British in the 1950s and adapted later on for United States use.

Not exactly a "poison gas" as such but during Operation Ranch Hand, from 1961 to 1971, the U.S. military sprayed a range of herbicides (over 20 million gallons) across more than 4.5 million acres of Vietnam. The intent was to destroy the forest cover and food crops used by enemy North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops.
U.S. aircraft sprayed roads, rivers, canals, rice paddies and farmland with powerful mixtures (up to 10 times the standard dosage) of herbicides. Obviously sprays can and did drift so the crops and water sources used by the non-combatant native population of South Vietnam were also hit. In addition to aircraft spraying these herbicides were also sprayed from trucks and hand-sprayers around U.S. military bases to produce clear fire zones and prevent infiltration by sappers. The various herbicides used during Operation Ranch Hand were referred to by the colored marks on the 55-gallon drums in which the chemicals were shipped and stored.

The most used herbicide (13 million gallons) was Agent Orange which was only one of the "Rainbow Herbicides" used by the U.S. military. There was also Agent Pink, Agent Green, Agent Purple, Agent White and Agent Blue. Each of these had different chemical compositions and additives in varying strengths. Like Agent Orange they were sprayed in concentrations well beyond the recommended amounts.

While these herbicides did not directly target human life Agent Orange did contain significant amounts of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin, often called TCDD, a type of dioxin. Now I would hasten to point out that this dioxin was not intentionally added to Agent Orange; rather, dioxin is a byproduct that was produced during the manufacturing of the herbicides and as such was found in varying concentrations in all the different herbicides used in Vietnam. The TCDD found in Agent Orange is the most dangerous of all the dioxins.

Zipper730 said:

Okay, I'll drop it, but I want to be clear I didn't just pull this out of my rectum.
Yeah, I don't think that'd be a good idea. It'd l

Click to expand...

Zipper730 said:

Okay, I'll drop it, but I want to be clear I didn't just pull this out of my rectum.
Yeah, I don't think that'd be a good idea. It'd look bad politically as well.
I do remember a chemical compound that the Germans toyed with called Chlorine Trifluoride (ClF3), which was also viewed as a potential rocket oxidizer.

I'm not sure how reliable storage for this stuff would be, but I do remember that the Germans saw it as too dangerous, and NASA gave up on it after a large tank blew up and set damned near everything nearby on fire (including concrete of all things): That said, it reacts with nearly anything including air, water, vegetable matter, humans, even ash (and concrete), as it's actually better at oxidizing than air itself.

It could be stored in certain types of metals by blowing fluorine gas inside the tanking structure, which produced an oxidization layer: The problem is, if the stuff were to become dislodged, all hell would break loose. Fluorine burns brutally, even Halon gas will ignite in the presence of ClF3 (something which is normally an effective fire-retardant).

That said, it would be able to get a forest fire going, even in a jungle: As a bonus, it would produce hydrofluoric acid as a byproduct which, while not all that low in pH, it's highly corrosive, and toxic as fuck (if I recall something like a couple of square inches would be lethal).

Click to expand...

I don't see why you even waste our time posting about chlorine trifluoride, even the Germans, as desperate as they got, decided it was too dangerous for real world tactical use.

N-Stoff or Substance-N was tested by the Nazis as a flamethrower-type weapon or Napalm-type canister that would literally burn through anything and everything it even corrodes platinum and gold metals. Only nitrogen and the inert gasses won't react with it. It can be stored in metal (steel, copper, aluminium) containers IF a bit of fluorine gas is injected into the cylinders to forms a metal fluoride protective layer (much like Oxygen reacts with Aluminium to form a protective Aluminium Oxide coating on the metal). HOWEVER anything which disturbs or disrupts this protective layer allows the ClF3 to contact the actual and the results are explosive. So if you could squirt the stuff onto a reinforced concrete blockhouse the ClF3 would burn through the concrete, and anything else, very quickly and as an added bonus produce clouds of corrosive and toxic HF (Hydrofluoric acid). The Nazis did produce 30-50 tones of the stuff but all of the above problems prevented its battlefield use.

The SPILL - No it wasn't NASA though NASA did play around with the stuff as a hypergolic agent that would react instantaneously with any fuel. It is an excellent rocket fuel igniting instantly with any fuel at over 7000F. BUT as with its war usage the immense difficulties in handling it both out of and inside the rocket were too difficult to over come on a consistent basis...one minor oversight triggered massive explosions.
General Chemical Co. in Shreveport Louisiana, back in the early 1950s, was preparing to ship a one ton steel tank of ClF3. The tank had been cooled with dry ice to make it easier to load the ClF3 into the tank. Unfortunately the extreme cold had made the steel very brittle and while they were loading the container onto a dolly the steel container split dumping the ClF3 onto the concrete floor. Within a minute or so the ClF3 had burned explosively through a foot (30cm) of concrete and through 3 feet (90cm) of gravel below the concrete. The toxic, corrosive gasses formed by the burning corroded and destroyed everything in the warehouse. The man who had been steadying the tank was blown over 500ft away.

Hydrofluoric acid - you are correct, as an acid it is very mild, vinegar (Acetic acid) is a stronger acid. But HF has some very unique properties having nothing to do with acidic qualities. In the lab we used it to etch glass. The glass container was coated with paraffin then you scratched off the paraffin with a stylus exposing the glass underneath. HF would then be poured/brushed onto the class and allowed to eat away at the glass (the clear glass becomes frosted where the paraffin was removed). The real fun part of all this is HF's ability to react with human tissue. Hydrofluoric acid is rapidly absorbed through the skin, whereupon it selectively attacks bone and interferes with nerve function (so there is no pain initially involved), often causing fatal fluorine poisoning. The death and destruction of the burned tissues is not noticeable for days after exposure.
In 1994, an Australian lab technician was unfortunate enough to spill around one hundred milliliters of hydrofluoric acid in his lab, splashing both thighs. Despite immediately washing the area and submerging himself in water until the ambulance arrived, his condition deteriorated to the point where his right leg had to be amputated. Despite this, he died of multiple organ failure fifteen days after the spill.

If you want to be diverted by dangerous chemicals, look for Derek Lowe's blog topic "Things I won't work with" and John D. Clark's book, Ignition!

Excellent choices. A large part of the Manhattan Project was developing methods to produce, handle, and store Fluorine gas. F2 gas is really nasty stuff and there is very little that it does not react with it by bursting into flame. Even ceramics and water burn in F2. The Manhattan people needed to react Uranium with F2 to produce UF4 the only gaseous Uranium compound. The U238 Fluoride is heavier than the U235 Fluoride and as such the U238 tetrafluoride has a slower rate of diffusion. At the time, the only way to separate the two isotopes.
ClF4 makes Fluorine gas look like water in comparison

Zipper730 said:

Would the incineration of Hanoi resulted in any of the following if it was implemented around 1965

• Chinese hordes coming across the border
• Other escalation of war
• Outrage at home

Click to expand...

Steve and I examine that situation in Dragon's Jaw (Shameless Hype Dept, see below.) We realized that what is (apparently) never-ever mentioned was the domestic situation in China during the period: Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, widespread famine and ongoing feuds with Russia. Thing is: the LBJ/RSM cabal had to know all of that but still clung to the Wider War tarbaby. Being cynical, one might say that the outcome from the US perspective likely would not have been worse than what actually happened. Amazon product ASIN 0306903474
As for LeMay, in researching his first posthumous bio, it became evident that he and maybe Marine Commandant Greene were the only JCS members with any willingness to stand up to LBJ/McNamara/Taylor/et al. But LeMay timed out in February 65 so he was never in a position to exert much influence. His successor, McConnell, was a Johnson drinking buddy...enough said.

Barrett said:

Steve and I examine that situation in Dragon's Jaw . . . . We realized that what is (apparently) never-ever mentioned was the domestic situation in China during the period: Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, widespread famine and ongoing feuds with Russia. Thing is: the LBJ/RSM cabal had to know all of that but still clung to the Wider War tarbaby.

Click to expand...

Weird

It was a while before it was known just how destructive the great leap forward, the red guards, etc. was.
Lots of rumors were coming out of China at the time, some of it just seemed too good to be true.

The border clashes between the USSR and China was known about as they happened, even by the general public.
Some public officials, and newspapers, treated the information as if it was just a play act put on by the communists, to try to lure us into dropping our guard.

America was a suspicious country then, saw commies behind every tree.

tyrodtom said:

It was a while before it was known just how destructive the great leap forward, the red guards, etc. was.
Lots of rumors were coming out of China at the time, some of it just seemed too good to be true.

The border clashes between the USSR and China was known about as they happened, even by the general public.
Some public officials, and newspapers, treated the information as if it was just a play act put on by the communists, to try to lure us into dropping our guard.

America was a suspicious country then, saw commies behind every tree.

Click to expand...

This hasn't ended. Witness some of the political rhetoric regarding just about any current US politician as far to the left as Nixon

swampyankee said:

This hasn't ended. Witness some of the political rhetoric regarding just about any current US politician as far to the left as Nixon

Click to expand...

The rhetoric on both sides has swung further and further to the extremes. The DMZ between has become a tiger pit full of poisoned punji stakes. We've seen this before. Which side prevails in the end has huge implications on the global geopolitical stage. Compare France and Germany in the late 30s, or Russia in the 19teens.
Now back to Thud Ridge.
Cheers,
Wes

XBe02Drvr said:

Now back to Thud Ridge.

Click to expand...

For any of you wondering at that reference: THUDS refers to the F-105 Thunderchief aircraft and the ridge refers to a terrain feature running NW about 30 klicks from Hanoi. It served as a waypoint and terrain masking feature for the incoming 105s attacking Hanoi. Later in the war the NVA would install anti-aircraft guns along the ridge using heavy lift helos to get the guns to the top of the 5000 ft high ridge

From Here...Thuds, the Ridge, and 100 Missions North | Page 1 | Military Aviation | Air & Space Magazine

"The F-105s would then head into North Vietnam, flying at 18,000 to 20,000 feet. Going into PAK VI, the pilots followed two main approaches. One took them out over the Gulf of Tonkin, where they then turned to the attack. The other took them along a mile-high branch of the Day Truong Son (Long Chain of Mountains). Paralleled on the south by the Red River, this narrow complex of karsts and dense-canopy forest points southeast toward Hanoi. Americans called it Thud Ridge, after the men who were lost there and the F-105 detritus littering its rough slopes"

tyrodtom said:

It was a while before it was known just how destructive the great leap forward, the red guards, etc. was.
Lots of rumors were coming out of China at the time, some of it just seemed too good to be true.

Click to expand...

The Great Leap Forward was 1968 to 1962 right?

The border clashes between the USSR and China was known about as they happened, even by the general public.

Click to expand...

When did these occur?

Zipper730 said:

The Great Leap Forward was 1968 to 1962 right?
When did these occur?

Click to expand...

It sounds like you've got the Great Leap Forward, ( 58-62) and Cultural Revolution ( 66-76) confused. Google them.

The serious border clashes happened in early 1969. Lasted most of the year.

XBe02Drvr said:

The rhetoric on both sides has swung further and further to the extremes. The DMZ between has become a tiger pit full of poisoned punji stakes. We've seen this before. Which side prevails in the end has huge implications on the global geopolitical stage. Compare France and Germany in the late 30s, or Russia in the 19teens.
Now back to Thud Ridge.
Cheers,
Wes

Click to expand...

Or the US in the 1850s

swampyankee said:

Or the US in the 1850s

Click to expand...

Roger. Concur. I was trying to leave US politics and history out of it. The tribalization and political polarization and "militarization" of the middle ground seems to be a global phenomenon these days. Dissent=treason; politically, culturally, and ethnically. Do we need any further proof that the earth is already over-populated?
On that cheery note, 'nuff said.
Wes

This is, inherently, a very political topic which, alas, still has repercussions in politics of today.

I think there were two major political fallacies in place during the Vietnam War. The first was that all US wars must be crusades to an ultimate, indisputable victory and the second was the sunk cost fallacy: the war must continue until all the US deaths are avenged.

A third, historical fallacy is the "action" which resulted in the Golf of Tonkin resolution. Investigation seems to indicate that the purported action never happened.

Tick....tick....tick.....