Pogovor:Kemično orožje

Kartagina

Izbrisal sem naslednje: Rimljani so namerno uničevali tudi polja žitaric, najslavnejši primer tega pa je porušenje Kartagine leta 146 pr. n. št., ko so zavojevalci posuli sol (natrijev klorid, NaCl) po rodovitnih poljih.Langford, str. 212.

Komentar: Kolikor sem prebral o 3. punski vojni, gre za moderno bažo, ki ni podprta z znanimi antičnimi viri. Vsaj pri Apijanu ne, ki je glavni vir in orientacijska točka za vse kasnejše pisanje (poleg arheoloških virov). Rimljani niso imeli nobenega razloga, da bi uničili rodovitna zemljišča, ki so lahko služila kot vojni plen in rešila preskrbo Rima z žitom. Uničili so mesto, podeželja pa ne. Kartagina je bila po zavzetju ena glavnih žitnic (ager publicus). Ravno to je problem Wikipedije, ko se pojavi en navavidez zanesljiv vir, ki se ponavlja po vseh wikipedijah, nikoli pa se ne postavi pod vprašaj. Pa to ni edini primer. Tudi sol ni ravno nek primer kemičnega orožja (razen za polže). Hinko Gnito (pogovor) 10:27, 13. julij 2012 (CEST)

Da, po Ridleyju stvar verjetno izvira iz napačne interpretacije zgodbe iz Šehema, osnovane v 19. stoletju. Glede trditve o tem, da sol ni orožje se nikakor ne strinjam, saj v uvodu jasno piše, da se kemikalije lahko uporabi proti rastlinam in se s tem onemogoči njihovo uporabo. Analogen primer tega je recimo pšenična rja: mar je ta zajedavska gliva žitaric toksična za človeka? Ni, vendar lahko s tem uničiš pridelek in ekonomsko prizadeneš nasprotno stran, kar je posredna oblika vojskovanja, usmerjeno proti agrikulturi, lahko pa gre tudi za agroterorizem. Kar pomeni, da je povezava med soljo in polži nerelevantna, pomembna pa je zveza sol-poljščine-hrana-človek-sposobnost nadaljevanja vojne.

Moj sklep je torej takšen, da bom v ustreznem poglavju naredil opombo glede soljenja, morda bom napisal še posebno poglavje glede agrikulture. Sicer pa sem nadvse zadovoljen, če se nekdo poglobi v te zadeve pa stvari postavi na pravo mesto, saj je v cilju WP, da postane zanesljiva in popolna enciklopedija.--Archangel 13:49, 13. julij 2012 (CEST)

Wrong photo

does not depict chemical attack but smoke screen. This image is the derivative work work of the cover of Shashin Shuho () that was the state-sponsored magazine in 1941. Thank you. Takabeg (pogovor) 09:02, 15. avgust 2014 (CEST)

Considering that smoke screen can be a type of chemical warfare in a broader sense, I corrected the caption accordingly.--Archangel 10:16, 15. avgust 2014 (CEST)

They used smoke screen to conceal themselves from their enemy. We must not use irrelevant images in encyclopedia, especially in featured articles (Wikipedija:Izbrani članki) Takabeg (pogovor) 00:55, 17. avgust 2014 (CEST)

As I said, I changed the caption under the picture: Japanese forces, using smoke screen for cover. Smoke screen is a type of chemical warfare in broader sense, so the image was not irrelevant, especially with changed caption. Anyway, I used some other picture in that place.--Archangel 11:10, 17. avgust 2014 (CEST)

Misuse of a photograph

Japanese Naval Landing Force, awaiting attack orders whilst wearing gas masks in anticipation of a potential poison gas attack by the Chinese Army, maintaining the frontlines until the arrival of reinforcements (Chapei front, Shanghai.

The back cover of Pictorial World (『世界画報』,　Sekai Gaho, December 1937)

.

The image is not related with a Japanese chemical attack but with a possible Chinese chemical attack.

• Peter Harmsen writes in his Shanghai 1937: Stalingrad on the Yangtze, Whether the Japanese actually did use gas in Shanghai area was a matter of debate, and remains in the years after the battle. (Harmsen, pp. 178-179) In short, he says that Chinese side claimed/reported Japanese chemical attacks, Japanese side claimed/reported Chinese chemical attacks.
• This photograph depicts an unit of the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force (上陸), which was a small garrison and defended the northeastern rim of the Shanghai International Settlement. There is neither reports nor claims on gas attacks by the Shanghai Special Naval Landing Force.
• This photograph was taken in the Chapei front, which includes some parts of Chapei (Zhabei) and Hongkew (Hongkou), during the Battle of Shanghai. There is neither reports nor claims about gas attacks in Chapei front.
• Moreover, this photograph was used as the back cover of a Japanese magazine Pictorial World (『世界画報』,　Sekai Gaho, Vol.13, No.12). The Japanese side which accused Chinese side of using poison gas at the time. If it depicted their own poison gas attack, they couldn't use it.
• According to Ji Xueren (纪学仁/紀學仁, prof. of the PLA Chemical Warfare Command and Engineering Academy),Chinese side claims that the Japanese Imperial Army used chemical weapons (mainly tear gas) during the Battle of Shanghai. Dates, areas and targets that Ji Xueren claims are as follows:

1. 4 October PM 7:00 Shih-hsiang-kung Taoist Temple (施相公廟) near Lo- tien (羅店) against 67th Division
2. 5 October Morning same area
3. 6 October Evening same area
4. 9 October AM 11:00 Tung-chao-chia (東趙家), 3 km southeast of T'ang-ch'iao Station (塘橋站), against 1st Regiment of the 1st Division
5. 15 October Noon Ch'en-chia-hsing (陳家行) against 32nd Division
6. 28 October Ko-chia-t'ou (葛家頭)、Ch'ing-shui-hsien (清水顯) against 4th Division
7. 28 October Ma-chia-chai (馬家宅) against 159th Division

All of places that Chinese claims on Japanese gas attacks during the Battle of Shanghai are far from Chapei front.

• In spite of Japanese official reports on Chinese poison gas attacks during the Battle of Shanghai, whether the Chinese side did use poison gas in Shanghai area was also disputable. But at least it's the fact that the Japanese side, especially frontline troops were afraid of possible Chinese poison gas attacks, because Japanese news papers actually reported the Chinese poison gas attacks this.

• The caption of this photograph in Sino-Japanese war: Records by News Photographers of Japan, U.S., and China is Japanese Naval Landing Force, awaiting attack orders whilst wearing gas masks in anticipation of a potential poison gas attack by the Chinese Army, maintaining the frontlines until the arrival of reinforcements (Chapei, Shanghai. (Sino-Japanese war, p. 38).

• In conclusion, this photograph doesn't depict a Japanese gas attack. Najlepša hvala. Takabeg (pogovor) 06:59, 12. september 2014 (CEST)

P.S. @Uporabnik:Archangel I have a present for you A, B for your contributions. But this photograph doesn't depict a Chinese gas attack, either　:)) Takabeg (pogovor) 07:08, 12. september 2014 (CEST)

I think that the current caption of image on this Wikipedia, which goes as "Imperial Japanese armed forces, wearing gas masks during Battle of Shanghai" is neutral as possible. Detailed explanation can be found on Commons.--Archangel 14:32, 14. september 2014 (CEST)