18-05-2004 03:06									#121
	Suffering from ads?

The fact that it had other effects does not make it WMD. Was the Chernobyl explosion WMD?

	18-05-2004 03:07									#122
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I don't think WMD count as such when you use them against communist

	18-05-2004 03:13									#123
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Japher I don't think WMD count as such when you use them against communist

Oh.

	18-05-2004 03:14									#124
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich So the pesticides we spray on crops are also WMD?

They could certainly be used that way. Just look at what DDT and other pesticides have done, and they wheren't even used as a weapon.

Although agricultural herbicides and pesticides are far, far, far more tame than agent orange which was designed to turn lush jungle into deadlands.

quote: Plus, have we even used cluster bombs in the past decade or two? I know we didn't use them in the first Gulf War.

They where used in afghanistan, atleast.

quote: They cause "mass destruction" in large quantities

Yes... this is why they are called 'cluster bombs' - they are a large quantity of bombs packaged together.

quote: Besides, the definition of WMD is - get this - weapons of mass destruction. NBC weapons can all be used for that easily and efficiently. ... Nukes are WMD because they are a simple, efficient way of kill mass numbers of people (primarily innocents). Given that, chemical weapons are not as "WMD-ish" as nuclear and biological weapons, but still are.

So it's the sheer destructive force of a weapon that makes it a WMD? Then surely the air-fuel bombs must be a WMD?

Yes, I know - your answer will of course be no. But it's a strange scenario where the 'mother of all bombs' is not a weapon of mass destruction, but an antique artillery shell with nerve gas in it is.

	18-05-2004 03:20									#125
	Increase Your PM Length

Because the antique artillery shell is part of a class of weapons that lend themselves easily towards wiping out massive numbers of people with minimal effort.

	18-05-2004 03:28									#126
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich OK, it's simple then. Agent Orange is not WMD. We were trying to kill frigging plants, not people.

1. They wheren't spraying plants. They where spraying the jungle in it's entirety - that means the villages and people in it.

2. Even if it where to only kill plants, that would leave everyone starving and unable to grow more food.

3. It's results where not unnattended, but ignored. It is impossible that the scientists who created this chemical where not aware of it's poisonous and toxic nature. They where designing it to to annhilate all life. The fact that they intentionally left animal (human) life out of their equation does not excuse it.

quote: Because the antique artillery shell is part of a class of weapons that lend themselves easily towards wiping out massive numbers of people with minimal effort.

Kinda like depleted uranium bullets?


But I'd say that all weapons lend themselves towards wiping out massive numbers of people with minimal effort, anyways.

	18-05-2004 03:31									#127
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd 1. They wheren't spraying plants. They where spraying the jungle in it's entirety - that means the villages and people in it.

So? We spray pesticides on entire farms.

Intent is what matters, not effect.

quote: 2. Even if it where to only kill plants, that would leave everyone starving and unable to grow more food.

Which is still a) not WMD and b) not true. Do you really think they got their food from the thick jungle shrub-thingies?

quote: 3. It's results where not unnattended, but ignored. It is impossible that the scientists who created this chemical where not aware of it's poisonous and toxic nature. They where designing it to to annhilate all life. The fact that they intentionally left animal (human) life out of their equation does not excuse it.

They were designing it to destroy foliage. They couldn't have cared less about whether or not it killed animals.

quote: But I'd say that all weapons lend themselves towards wiping out massive numbers of people with minimal effort, anyways.

But some more than others.

This whole argument is basically pointless anyway, as anyone (important) means NBC weapons when they refer to WMD.

	18-05-2004 03:41									#128
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich quote: Originally posted by General Ludd 1. They wheren't spraying plants. They where spraying the jungle in it's entirety - that means the villages and people in it. So? We spray pesticides on entire farms.

On entire crops, actually...

But, uhm, there aren't any villages hidden in a farmer's field.

quote: Which is still a) not WMD and b) not true. Do you really think they got their food from the thick jungle shrub-thingies?

They grow their food in the jungle, yes. Where else are they going to get it? You think they walk 100 miles to market every day?

Farmlands that where sprayed with it are still barren and unusable, by the way.

quote: They were designing it to destroy foliage. They couldn't have cared less about whether or not it killed animals.

'Wether or not', indeed...

and that's also what I just said.

	18-05-2004 03:45									#129
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd On entire crops, actually... But, uhm, there aren't any villages hidden in a farmer's field.

But if a person happened to be there, it would suddenly be a WMD attack?

quote: They grow their food in the jungle, yes. Where else are they going to get it?

Parts of the jungle that they'd cleared. Generally, agriculture doesn't work in a rain forest.

quote: Farmlands that where sprayed with it are still barren and unusable, by the way.

Point?

quote: 'Wether or not', indeed... and that's also what I just said.

If I shoot a gun at random, not intending to kill you, is that murder or manslaughter?

(hint: it's manslaughter)

	18-05-2004 03:54									#130
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Point?

You seemed to be saying that farmlands where not sprayed with it.

quote: If I shoot a gun at random, not intending to kill you, is that murder or manslaughter? (hint: it's manslaughter)

I don't think any court would call that manslaugher. Unless maybe if the person doing it was mentally handicapped.

Of course, you worded that a bit funny. You forgot to mention that someone gets killed, and that the person firing randomly with no intent to kill was pointing the gun in the direction of a crowd.


Anyways, You have changed your definition of WMDs to 'intent to kill' now?

Intersting.

	18-05-2004 04:01									#131
	Remove this text

Saddam Hussein was a thug, right? I've dealt with a few thugs in my time and I can state with reasonable certainty that thugs are not big on documentation. If they were theu would have gone into corporate accountaincy.

	18-05-2004 04:03									#132
	Support Apolyton

quote: Personally I don't know why chemical weapons are considered WMD.

Because it's a matter of international law. They, along with nukes and bioweapons were given that name back in the 70s IIRC.

Only nukes are really weapons of mass destruction in the ordinary meaning of that term. Bioweapons are unproven and most of the money spent on such things goes on nukes for the simple reason that nukes work.

Chemical weapons are just a kind of artillery. They are only useful when you are faced with massed concentrations of infantry opposing each other. That's why they were used in WWI and why Saddam used them (because that's the sort of war he faced). The kill ratio of chemical artillery shells is about 2 soldiers per shell I think - hardly a scary terrorist weapon. After all the AUM cult used sarin in a subway station and only managed to kill about ten people - a nail bomb would have killed more.

It's all smoke and mirrors - chemical weapons aren't going to be used by terrorists to kill thousands because they aren't particularly efficient. Blowing up people with conventional explosives would kill more.

If this isn't a leftover from the Iran-Iraq war then it the bombers probably made it themselves. The AUM cult did that - it's not that hard, and incidentally shows up the administration's case that Saddam would give chemicals to terrorists for what it is - why would they bother when it would be easier to make them themselves and they don't work very well anyway?

The right are going to have to do better than this.

	18-05-2004 04:03									#133
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara It was a chemical weapon. The purpose of that weapon was to turn sprayed areas into a desert. The fact that it kills people may have just been a "lucky" accident, but I doubt it. I think more likely, the U.S. didn't want to deal with international oprobrium for using chem weapons on humans.

It wasn't a weapon at all, by definition. It was a defoliant. A glorified weed killer. As a weapon, it would be useless, since anyone sprayed with it (including my brother) was perfectly capable of shooting at you for days, weeks, months and years. In fact, many people with significant AO exposure will die of old age with no verifiable direct effects from AO.

quote: Anyway, even if you ignore that, the U.S. recently sprayed Cuba with a type of plant scale that has infected their crops. In the 1970s, the U.S. infected the Cuban pig heards with Swine Fever, and a hlaf million animals had to be destroyed.

Documentation from something other than Castro and his proxies? Cuba likes to blame every failing of their system on the US.

	18-05-2004 04:07									#134
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by General Ludd I don't think any court would call that manslaugher. Unless maybe if the person doing it was mentally handicapped. Of course, you worded that a bit funny. You forgot to mention that someone gets killed, and that the person firing randomly with no intent to kill was pointing the gun in the direction of a crowd.

Perhaps it's a bad example, my point was that there has to be an intent to harm.

quote: Anyways, You have changed your definition of WMDs to 'intent to kill' now? Intersting.

Never changed it. I'm explaining what "weapon" means. I assumed it was obvious that something that isn't a weapon is, by extension, not a weapon of mass destruction.

	18-05-2004 04:16									#135
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Perhaps it's a bad example

No, it was a perfect example.


It shows how absurd their plea of defense is. That because they willfully ignored the damage it does to people, they did not intend for it to happen.

	18-05-2004 04:27									#136
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Of course they didn't intend for it to happen, if they didn't care whether or not it happened!

	18-05-2004 04:47									#137
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich The fact that it had other effects does not make it WMD. Was the Chernobyl explosion WMD?

Ah -- inflating my claim to something that I would not stand for.



that's fabulous

	18-05-2004 04:50									#138
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Kucinich Of course they didn't intend for it to happen, if they didn't care whether or not it happened!

Actually, not caring wether or not something happens does not imply any sort of intention. What it implies is disregard.

	18-05-2004 07:29									#139
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Okay here is what I think happened.

Someone mentioned that the insurgents found the WMD's for us (unknowingly) and I think that is very true.

I think it was Oerdin who said the reason those IED's are all over the place is because it is very easy to get access to stockpiles of artillery shells and rig them up as roadside bombs. There are apparently stockpiles of artillery shells all over the place and the Coalition has been unable to destroy all of those stockpiles. (This blew my mind when he said it and I figured this would be one of the first things that would happen during the occupation).

Since there is a shell with a serin in it:

1) There must be a whole stockpile
2) Nobody knows where it is except the guys who set the bomb
3) If they hear about the serin (which they probably will) they are probably smart enough to try and go back to their stash and find some more to try and use them

	18-05-2004 07:43									#140
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

It was found on the side of the road? Convenient .

	18-05-2004 07:52									#141
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Because it's a matter of international law. They, along with nukes and bioweapons were given that name back in the 70s IIRC. Only nukes are really weapons of mass destruction in the ordinary meaning of that term. Bioweapons are unproven and most of the money spent on such things goes on nukes for the simple reason that nukes work.

Yes I fully understand the classificationis due to international treaty and law. Doesn't mean tho' I hold them in the same class as Bio and nukes wrt real and immenent threat for use via terrorists.


IIRC studies were shown kill to cost ratio as follws

conventional
chemical - 1 order of magintude less
Bioweapons - 2 to 3 order of magintude less
Nuclear - 3 order of magnitude less


The nightmare of bio weapons is the stealth that they can be employed. A fanatical could easily infect himself with small pox or worse and attempt to come into contact with as many as possible setting off chain reactions of exposure.

The likelood of a chemical weapon being employed with proper LD50 concentrations to effect large areas is fairly remote.

	18-05-2004 08:13									#142
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

If someone infected themselves with smallpox, the response would be a mass campaign of vaccination. At present, the vaccine kills about 1 in X hundred thousand of people who get it, and is viewed as an unacceptable risk.

There is no reason to think that Saddam has the smallpox virus anyway. It's been eradicated in the wild for years. And we all know how dangerous anthrax is. What? Four or five deaths? Hardly panic material.

It's all smoke and mirrors. Nukes are the only real WMDs. That's why the vast majority of expenditure goes towards them and not chemical or bioweapons.

All this terror over chemical and bioweapons has more to do with movies than the facts.

	18-05-2004 08:24									#143
	Full PM-box? Change here!

That is the biggest underestimation that I have ever heard

Terrorists play by different rules

Bio and chemical weapons are well within their budget

The reason that STATES spend more money on nukes is that, as terrible as they are, they are more "acceptable" for use than the other two alternatives

	18-05-2004 08:32									#144
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui It was found on the side of the road? Convenient .

Yeah -- they got drive-by pickup stations now for greater convenience.

	18-05-2004 08:35									#145
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Agathon If someone infected themselves with smallpox, the response would be a mass campaign of vaccination. At present, the vaccine kills about 1 in X hundred thousand of people who get it, and is viewed as an unacceptable risk. There is no reason to think that Saddam has the smallpox virus anyway. It's been eradicated in the wild for years. And we all know how dangerous anthrax is. What? Four or five deaths? Hardly panic material. It's all smoke and mirrors. Nukes are the only real WMDs. That's why the vast majority of expenditure goes towards them and not chemical or bioweapons. All this terror over chemical and bioweapons has more to do with movies than the facts.

Anthrax is a joke. It is hardly a bioweapon except in the same fashion that chemical weapons are relying more on initial exposure and concentration less communicability.

Movies certainly overhype( 12 Monkeys, Outbreak etc.), but the facts remain DOD reckon Bioweapons on a scale of destruction to life on the same order of cost to kill as nukes.

Wrt to what Saddam had the news was never really evident as to what strains he was cultivating. There was reports tho' that several strains of critters were in possession hidden at one of the Iraqi scientists home. Whether this is urban legend or not I don't know.

I believe you vastly underestimate the potential of bioweaponry in light of DOD estimates and the ease at which they could be introduced unawares into society.

Finally wrt to massive innoculation, the effect would already have happened by the time the call for massive innoculation would be made. At that point the attack would be successful in terms of death count as well as hysteria created IMO.

	18-05-2004 08:44									#146
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

USA is putting robots into the water supply

Their mission will be to float around and monitor the water as an early warning system in case of contamination

	18-05-2004 09:23									#147
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

If it is nerve gas, that is very disturbing. All over the former Soviet bloc are decaying chemical weapon stockpiles, many of which the successor governments can't accoutn for, so it wouldn't be hard to get a shell or 3 via criminal or politically sympathetic connections liek the Chechens.

If they manage to lob a chemical bomb into the green zone there is going to be major headaches for the coalition.

Chemical weapons are the perfect terrorist weapon in my view.

	18-05-2004 09:37									#148
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Agreed

That is why we need to send DROT in ASAP with copies of Upskirting Magazine to weaken their morale!!!!

	18-05-2004 09:46									#149
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by CyberShy 'most of them' doesn't cover 'all of them' and apparently some still work. (read todays news) cheg, of course it's valid to question the USA's way of handling these kinds of weapons, but that's another discussion. Unless you of course suggest that the bomb that exploded today is one of those unaccounted american bombs. And your 2nd theory is interesting, and most obviously true in some way. But that still leaves the question open why Sadam didn't come with the evidence when the USA were knocking on his door. It's a little bit silly to keep the idea of having WMD to keep small enemies out of your territory, but fail to see that a bigger enemy will break your door because of it.

The evil America Governmen t refuse to look at or believe
the evidence. This might be than left over shell from the Iraq-Iran war which was miss. In the derest around El Paso is than area that was once use to fire live artill shells durnging WWII than the area is close off as there is unexplorse shells out there.

	18-05-2004 10:00									#150
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat It wasn't a weapon at all, by definition. It was a defoliant. A glorified weed killer. As a weapon, it would be useless, since anyone sprayed with it (including my brother) was perfectly capable of shooting at you for days, weeks, months and years. In fact, many people with significant AO exposure will die of old age with no verifiable direct effects from AO. Documentation from something other than Castro and his proxies? Cuba likes to blame every failing of their system on the US.

Castro is more credital than Prejury Bush and his henchman. Some European Governments grather evident of this like French than they support Castro in this. Durnging the Korean War America drop plague bombs on China which didnot work as well as we hope. The Black Death was pettry common in China that people recognite the signs of it petty quickly. China grather the evidence than show it to other countries round the World. This is one of the reason we where careful in our treatment of China.