 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
I'm not arguing that the purpose of Agent Orange was NOT to defoil the jungle coverage, but I'm also not going to ignore the other multiple effects this toxic chemical had. |
Which were discovered years after the fact, when US troops started getting sick in various ways after getting back to CONUS. In case you didn't know, one of the casualties of AO was the son of CNO Elmo Zumwalt, who was one of the responsible parties for the decision to use AO.
It was routinely applied directly on or around US troops, to clear perimeters around firebases, because it was quicker and more effective than trying to helo in a bunch of engineering vehicles, which were in short supply anyway. It was used in areas continuosly patrolled by the brown water navy, and in areas where LRRP and SF teams, as well as MAT/DSA teams and RF/PFs were operating. US and allied forces also routinely went into areas which had just been sprayed.
It was never exclusively confined to "hostile territory" - in fact, virtually all AO application was done in RVN and Laos, not in the north.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrFun
|
 |
of Iowa
Nov 2000
time: 23:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Which were discovered years after the fact, when US troops started getting sick in various ways after getting back to CONUS. In case you didn't know, one of the casualties of AO was the son of CNO Elmo Zumwalt, who was one of the responsible parties for the decision to use AO.
It was routinely applied directly on or around US troops, to clear perimeters around firebases, because it was quicker and more effective than trying to helo in a bunch of engineering vehicles, which were in short supply anyway. It was used in areas continuosly patrolled by the brown water navy, and in areas where LRRP and SF teams, as well as MAT/DSA teams and RF/PFs were operating. US and allied forces also routinely went into areas which had just been sprayed.
It was never exclusively confined to "hostile territory" - in fact, virtually all AO application was done in RVN and Laos, not in the north. |
thanks  
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
 |
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
Needless to say, I totally disagree with Patroklos' post.
quote:
It is useless for those of you trying to reframe the meaning of WMD as people much smarter than you and much more important (yes, by inference you are not) have long ago applied the label of WMD to specific weapons which has become the defacto nomenclature virtually world wide. |
These people have a political desire to group chemical weapons and biological weapons with nukes in order to create public hysteria which they can exploit for their own ends.
You then proceed to group together chemical and biological weapons with nukes on the grounds that they 'unconventional' via not using chemicals or not using kinetic/heat energy. This is semantic trickery. Nukes have absolutely nothing in common with chemical or biological weapons; grouping them togother because they don't fit with 'conventional' weapons is dishonest. They are obviously two very different groups. Nukes in fact have more in common with conventional weapons, since they are basically large bombs and they are actually a potent weapon.
quote:
As for the classification of WMD, that is not so hard to grasp. Chemical weapons upon their first design we made specifically to be used in large areas, no smaller than square miles. Even today the best purely chemical explosive conventional weapons can be destructive in no more than a 1-mile radius and that’s pushing it. Despite how much some of you worship "daisy cutters" they can't hold a candle to a WMD used as designed. Back then the most destructive weapon was a giant trench mortar, and that was effective for a few hundred yards and only locally against hardened targets. Enter a chemical weapons attack that is released from two miles of trench line to envelope 6 square miles of front (such scale was necessary due to the weapons very design, need for winds and saturation levels) it was death on a scale no artillery shell could master. |
Don't you see how ridiculous it is to compare ONE artillery shell to a concerted gas attack over several miles of frontline? A much better comparison would be a prolonged artillery barrage involving thousands of shells over a similar width of trench.
80000 people were killed by chemical weapons in the First World War. Out of millions. Artillery and machine gun fire were (and are) infinitely more potent weapons.
quote:
Enter nukes, in a time where the most destructive weapon was a 1000lb bomb, we unleash a few kilotons. Care to argue over that distinction? |
And they've got precisely nothing to do with chemical or biological weapons, other than being arbitarily grouped with them for propaganda purposes.
quote:
Them comes bioweapons. You may laugh it off now because the backyard grown anthrax is a nuisance, relative. But ask a post WWI factory worker about Influenza, or an Indian about Smallpox. Terrorist biological weapons are THE LEAST EFFECTIVE FORM of the threat. God forbid a powerful state ever decides to use their high-grade bugs. And then there is delivery. Want to guess what the scale of infection a state like the US or Russia could inflict on a population vice Habib so-and-so? |
Bioweapons can be defeated in the exact same way one defeats a natural outbreak; hospitals, quarantines, vaccines etc. Infectious disease is simply unable to seriously harm an advanced society. China managed to deal with SARS, despite there being no vaccine.
quote:
They are designed to be used a certain way, and that way is scale. Chemical weapons doctrine calls for release of thousands or gallons over hundreds of square miles, delivered specifically through various mediums (water, crops, etc.). Biological weapons also call for the same in its own way. |
And aerial bombardment doctrine also call for the use of scale. Tens of thousands of bombs delivered from the air, including incendiaries to start fires, and bombs that don't detonate on impact to kill sappers. The fires sucked so much oxygen out of the air that people suffocated, a bit like a gas attack.
600000 people died when that happened to Dresden. How on earth is that not 'mass destruction'?
quote:
Because Al-aba-nobody used one artillery shell in the way not intended does not make it any less a WMD than if an Iraq artillery battalion saturated a few square miles with several thousand rounds. It is not the knife's fault if a dumb ass stabs someone with the hilt, it is still a knife. |
Saturating a few square miles with normal artillery would be just as destructive, and it would destroy the infrastructure as well, and wouldn't be limited by wind, rain or sun. Or gas masks.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
|
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sandman
Needless to say, I totally disagree with Patroklos' post.
These people have a political desire to group chemical weapons and biological weapons with nukes in order to create public hysteria which they can exploit for their own ends.
|
You mean the whole international community was wrong, and it should revoke the ban on use of these weapons because they're really not as destructive as conventional artillery, etc.?
quote:
You then proceed to group together chemical and biological weapons with nukes on the grounds that they 'unconventional' via not using chemicals or not using kinetic/heat energy. This is semantic trickery. Nukes have absolutely nothing in common with chemical or biological weapons; grouping them togother because they don't fit with 'conventional' weapons is dishonest. They are obviously two very different groups. Nukes in fact have more in common with conventional weapons, since they are basically large bombs and they are actually a potent weapon.
|
Take it up with the armaments folks who grouped these categories of weapons together starting in at least the 1960's. Another key difference between conventional and unconventional weapons is the capability of unconventional weapons to cause casualties well after the period of attack.
quote:
Don't you see how ridiculous it is to compare ONE artillery shell to a concerted gas attack over several miles of frontline? A much better comparison would be a prolonged artillery barrage involving thousands of shells over a similar width of trench.
|
Who said "one shell" - he was talking about the scale of a weapon, and gas attacks are much more scalable. Gas was developed as a weapon precisely because artillery barrages left a lot of survivors, even after thousands of rounds. They might not hear so well, but artillery prep fire has always been overrated in it's effectiveness.
quote:
80000 people were killed by chemical weapons in the First World War. Out of millions. Artillery and machine gun fire were (and are) infinitely more potent weapons.
|
And of course, tactics like ordering troops to march in formation into machine gun fire aren't relevant in those totals, nor is the mass of ordnance used or the frequency of use of particular weapons systems. Pot calling the kettle black?
quote:
And they've got precisely nothing to do with chemical or biological weapons, other than being arbitarily grouped with them for propaganda purposes.
|
Ah, yes, the hazards of low-grade exposure, the detection methods, persistence of effect - all myths, it's the almighty 155mm HE round that's the real potential hazard. 
Bioweapons can be defeated in the exact same way one defeats a natural outbreak; hospitals, quarantines, vaccines etc. Infectious disease is simply unable to seriously harm an advanced society. China managed to deal with SARS, despite there being no vaccine.
quote:
And aerial bombardment doctrine also call for the use of scale. Tens of thousands of bombs delivered from the air, including incendiaries to start fires, and bombs that don't detonate on impact to kill sappers. The fires sucked so much oxygen out of the air that people suffocated, a bit like a gas attack.
600000 people died when that happened to Dresden. How on earth is that not 'mass destruction'?
|
You're a bit dated on doctrine. It was mass destruction. It also required hundreds of aircraft, and as you acknowledge, tens of thousands of bombs. You wouldn't need near that much to do the job with CW.
quote:
Saturating a few square miles with normal artillery would be just as destructive, and it would destroy the infrastructure as well, and wouldn't be limited by wind, rain or sun. Or gas masks. |
Have you ever seen artillery in action? "Saturating" a few square miles would take forever, and it would take even longer getting the tubes in range and that much supply built up. Plenty of time for the enemy to move or disperse, and enemy in bunkers would survive bombardments for days. A lot of German coastal artillery units in France surrendered when they ran out of ammunition, despite repeated aerial bombardment, naval and artillery bombardment, and attacks by combat engineers. The survivability of enemy troops under conventional artillery barrages surprises the hell out of most people. Troops aren't stupid enough, and their officers aren't stupid enough, to march to the cannon's roar in open terrain. Those days are gone.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orrery
I have to admit that I am not capable of believing that Saddam was honoring the cease-fire, especially in 1998 when Clinton made this Executive Order. Or in his praise of and harboring of terrorism in direct violation of the conditions for honoring the cease-fire. Note, :
CharlesBHoff, this is between the U.S. and Iraq, and I respect your right to voice your concerns. Yet given the evidence of Saddam's willingness to praise acts of terrorism and to support and finance it against the terms of his surrender, on which a cease-fire is based.
If Saddam were someone that I could trust, then why did President Clinton issue this Executive Order in 1998?
And also, the House Joint Resolution 114 seems to state definitively (and having been supported by a huge bipartisan vote) that Saddam was continuing to be in breach of the cease-fire conditions, and United Nations Resolution 1441 passed by a 15-0 vote in the Security also said that Saddam "has been and remains in material breach" I am not dismissing your feelings on this, I do however want to ask if you expect an American (the object of Saddam's hatred) to be able to trust Saddam Hussein. Just because we have power doesn't not mean we will abuse it, I believe that because of our Constitution that we can be trusted to work together for the prosperity of everyone. This is my intention, and I would take it a gesture of good faith if you would afford me the benefit of the doubt. |
You than fool to belive this cap. The Jewish people in America missuse they money to buy our polit and if that worked they use they power to ruin people who donot do as they ask. When America is defeast than Jewish and Zionist control will be needed so they cannot have that much ever again. They willnot be allow to hold public or appointed posts in the government, not allow to work for federal,states, and local government. Not allow to be member of any polict parties, not allow to own or worked in any media or commimation companies,not allow to give money to anyone running for public office or to any poltic parties. Not allow to own land, stocks and bonds in any corporation public or private, cannot worked for any stock exchanges at all. Cannot be than lawyer or working for the legal system at all.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
[QUOTE] Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Given your stated problems with written expression, I'm not sure if that's tinfoil hat conspiracy theory, or an antisemitic rant. Could you please attempt to clarify, so I can determine what to do with you?
This is not a request. [/Q
It is than tinfoil hat consipiracy with some fact behind it when than Arab ran against that senatoe from connection the jewish lorrey wage than snear camg against that guy. I read it in the Jounoral of Middleaestern Affair printed in Washington D.C.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sandman
|
|
Sinister Penguin
Aug 2001
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
You mean the whole international community was wrong, and it should revoke the ban on use of these weapons because they're really not as destructive as conventional artillery, etc.? |
They're banned because they cause unnecessary suffering. Like some types of bullet. I don't think they should be legalised, since the suffering argument is perfectly legit.
quote:
Take it up with the armaments folks who grouped these categories of weapons together starting in at least the 1960's. Another key difference between conventional and unconventional weapons is the capability of unconventional weapons to cause casualties well after the period of attack. |
What about landmines? They persist. They're designed for it. As well as unexploded stuff generally. What about depleted uranium? It's toxic, and sticks around.
quote:
Who said "one shell" - he was talking about the scale of a weapon, and gas attacks are much more scalable. Gas was developed as a weapon precisely because artillery barrages left a lot of survivors, even after thousands of rounds. They might not hear so well, but artillery prep fire has always been overrated in it's effectiveness. |
Patroklos said "it was death on a scale no artillery shell could muster".
I don't see how you can claim that gas was developed because artillery left survivors; if anything, gas left behind more and also didn't damage enemy fortifications. I don't think that it was 'developed' for any reason other than it seemed like a good idea.
It certainly did not have much effect on the outcome of the First World War.
quote:
And of course, tactics like ordering troops to march in formation into machine gun fire aren't relevant in those totals, nor is the mass of ordnance used or the frequency of use of particular weapons systems. Pot calling the kettle black? |
I happen to believe that the frequency of weapons systems used might have had something to do with their usefulness, especially as the war dragged on (and the primitive tactics used initially gave way to more advanced ones). Gas wasn't very effective; that's the simplest explanation.
quote:
Ah, yes, the hazards of low-grade exposure, the detection methods, persistence of effect - all myths, it's the almighty 155mm HE round that's the real potential hazard. |
You don't just detect nukes, chemical and biological weapons with specialised sniffing equipment. Conventional techniques are used as well, i.e. radar to spot for planes carrying them. And you can detect explosives with sniffer dogs.
Low-grade exposure; what about getting only slightly wounded by shrapnel? Doesn't that count as low-grade exposure for conventional weapons?
Anyway, suppose I wanted to group together nukes with conventional weapons. I could just as quickly cobble together a short list of similarities: Creates heat, destroys buildings, delivered in the same basic manner as conventional weapons,
quote:
You're a bit dated on doctrine. It was mass destruction. It also required hundreds of aircraft, and as you acknowledge, tens of thousands of bombs. You wouldn't need near that much to do the job with CW. |
Patroklos said that in order to use chemical weapons effectively, you'd need to use thousands of gallons of it. That entails quite a few planes, does it not?
quote:
Have you ever seen artillery in action? "Saturating" a few square miles would take forever, and it would take even longer getting the tubes in range and that much supply built up. Plenty of time for the enemy to move or disperse, and enemy in bunkers would survive bombardments for days. A lot of German coastal artillery units in France surrendered when they ran out of ammunition, despite repeated aerial bombardment, naval and artillery bombardment, and attacks by combat engineers. The survivability of enemy troops under conventional artillery barrages surprises the hell out of most people. Troops aren't stupid enough, and their officers aren't stupid enough, to march to the cannon's roar in open terrain. Those days are gone. |
Most of this applies to gas attacks as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
Chemical weapons the military use arenot the most deadly of chemical out there. The military nowday want than chemical weapon agent that breakdown in afew minutes. The Mustard gas use in World War I willnot break down untril afew thousand year pass.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MrFun
No one pwned MTG -- ever. |
What does pwned mean mr Fun.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
And a point I made earlier but ignored:
CW can't be used when it is raining (washes the Chemical out of the air), or too cold (and certainly not when snowing), if it is too windy, or if it is too hot and sunny (the UV radiation helps break down the chemicals)- what a fearsome weapons then! as long as the weather permits its usage. |
Mustard gas isnot realy than gas but a liquich which can be make into a very fine mist that can poision the ground beanch it than the compound is very stable and willnot breakdown untril afew thousand year pas as it isnot biodegradable.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-05-2004 20:04
Did you wipe that little "fact" off with toilet paper after you pulled it out? Want to cite some source that claims a majority of US casualties in Vietnam were self-inflicted?
|