04-03-2003 19:00									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Unless Saddam's "human shields" are hanging out down in command bunkers (highly doubtful), that's not the case. General application of these as area effect weapons (a la human shields) is not mentioned.

Demerzel - I agree it's hypocritical, but then so are lots of things about this war, more than I can count without a world class threadjack.

UR - I'm aware of that, and it's one of the unfortunate aspects of the current convention. On the flip side, this may all be psychological warfare (a lot of disinformation made the press before Gulf War I, like reliability stories about the M-1 Abrams in the desert, and the deployment of Marine amphibious forces), intended to convince the Iraqi commanders that they're not safe in those bunker complexes.

	04-03-2003 19:04									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I guess Bush is gonna try and pull a "Putin".

someone should gas Bush...

	04-03-2003 19:09									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat Unless Saddam's "human shields" are hanging out down in command bunkers (highly doubtful), that's not the case. General application of these as area effect weapons (a la human shields) is not mentioned. Demerzel - I agree it's hypocritical, but then so are lots of things about this war, more than I can count without a world class threadjack. UR - I'm aware of that, and it's one of the unfortunate aspects of the current convention. On the flip side, this may all be psychological warfare (a lot of disinformation made the press before Gulf War I, like reliability stories about the M-1 Abrams in the desert, and the deployment of Marine amphibious forces), intended to convince the Iraqi commanders that they're not safe in those bunker complexes.

From the story:

"The Defence Secretary attacked the "straitjacket" imposed by bans in international treaties on using the weapons in warfare. He specified that they could be used "where there are enemy troops in a cave [and] you know there are women and children in there with them". General Richard Myers, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke of using them against human shields."

	04-03-2003 19:16									#64
	Inflate your Upload Space

There aren't many caves in Iraq, and Saddam's prior use of human shields have been around large area targets, so it sounds to me more like these guys are fishing for palatable explanations.

The "golly gee" statements by Myers and Rumsfeld are a little different from the reference to:

"Senior US defence sources predict these could be used in Iraq by elite special forces units to take out command and control bunkers deep underground."

Myers and Rumsfeld were trying to sell the idea in front of the House Armed Services Committee, which is rather different from defining operational policies on their use.

	04-03-2003 19:33									#65
	Remove this text

Police use gas all the time to break up riots with a nary a peep from concerned individuals. In the end, gas saves lives. Period.

I see this feigned outrage as yet another excuse to paint the US as the evil bully in this matter. If the bullets do start flying, the most humane thing that can happen is a swift end to the conflict with the smallest loss of life possible. If gas is a means to that end, I say we use it.

	04-03-2003 19:38									#66
	Inflate your Upload Space

So, MTG, is the alternative to seal the bunker and let everyone die?

Are secretaries in bunkers soldiers?

	04-03-2003 20:13									#67
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

I've pointed out that the alternatives are all higher lethality. And one would presume that military command centers have military secretaries and clerks - ours do. And female secretaries can handle pistols just fine, thank you, so in the bunker environment, they're a threat.

I'm in favor of using this stuff, because I'd much rather take this type of bunker intact and gain the intel that could be gained that way, rather than inflicting and incurring casualties, and one way or another destroying or giving the enemy time to destroy intel.

However, and it's a fairly big however, there is an element of hypocrisy both in deploying these agents, and in signing a convention banning their use when we have no intention of not using them if tactically advantageous.

	04-03-2003 20:19									#68
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by gunkulator Police use gas all the time to break up riots with a nary a peep from concerned individuals. In the end, gas saves lives. Period. I see this feigned outrage as yet another excuse to paint the US as the evil bully in this matter. If the bullets do start flying, the most humane thing that can happen is a swift end to the conflict with the smallest loss of life possible. If gas is a means to that end, I say we use it.

Did you not read the article? The kind of gas they may be using is similiar to the one they use in the moscow siege. It killed a very large percentage of those they were trying to save.

So a gas which kills 9% of the targets is humane? This isn't an attempt "to paint the US a bully" its a thread about the hypocrisy of using chemical weapons ( or their precursors ) on an enemy who you are fighting because they are evil as they have chemical weapons...

	04-03-2003 20:42									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

MtG: is this stuff really "chemical weapons"? ala VX?

	04-03-2003 20:45									#70
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: The kind of gas they may be using is similiar to the one they use in the moscow siege.

Are you equating a military operation with a hostage situation?

quote: So a gas which kills 9% of the targets is humane?

Compared with napalm or conventional weaponry that achieves close to 100% mortality - yes. War by it's nature is not humane at all. If you read my post, I am not arguing for or against war, I am simply pointing out that if war does come, a swift end with the fewest casualities is the closest we can come to being humane.

quote: its a thread about the hypocrisy of using chemical weapons ( or their precursors ) on an enemy who you are fighting because they are evil as they have chemical weapons...

So in order to avoid offending your sense of irony and hypocrisy, you would advocate more death and destruction? Non sequitor.

	04-03-2003 20:54									#71
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Azazel MtG: is this stuff really "chemical weapons"? ala VX?

I ain't MtG, but here:

http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_frameset.html

Like I said, this is a stupid move politically for the Bush admin.

	04-03-2003 21:05									#72
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Demerzel Did you not read the article? The kind of gas they may be using is similiar to the one they use in the moscow siege. It killed a very large percentage of those they were trying to save. So a gas which kills 9% of the targets is humane? This isn't an attempt "to paint the US a bully" its a thread about the hypocrisy of using chemical weapons ( or their precursors ) on an enemy who you are fighting because they are evil as they have chemical weapons...

D, The problem with the article and your point is that America will be using these "weapons" to SAVE LIVES. This is a MAJOR difference with what Saddam is using his chemical weapons for.

	04-03-2003 21:11									#73
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

That is true Ned but it's a damn fine line to walk and is open to interpretation from the user. Saddam could claim he is using chemical weapons to save Iraqi lives. Obviously in this case it'd be a blatant falsehood as we know better.

To the really neutral however, i.e. an alien from Mars, would they be able to distinguish the difference?

I just want to see as little life lost as possible in any war but it ruins our moral high ground if we use "illegal"* weapons that the enemy might use.

*illegal from terms of Chemical Weapons Convention.

	04-03-2003 23:18									#74
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Pepper spray kills asthmatics and other people who get too much of it.

	05-03-2003 00:08									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Firstly, with regard to chemical weapons, deploying them effectively is the difficult part. Every cent the US invests in inventing new ways to use 'non-lethal' gases will also make 'lethal' gases much easier to use.

Secondly, 'deadly' agents like mustard gas and sarin are far from 100% lethal, in fact they're probably little better than the assorted gases the US wishes to use.

I actually don't have a serious problem with gas being used as a weapon, but I do have a problem with it being used to manufacture a flimsy casus belli.

	05-03-2003 00:55									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

If what I read above is true, I believe the US's use of gas will be limited to closed in areas like bunkers and command posts. In those environments, deployment is fairly simple.

Likewise, the Iraqis (if they use gas) would presumably limit its use to dense areas of US troops. Far more disturbing are the possibilities of terrorists using gas to attack dense groups of civilians in subways, office buildings, tourist attractions and the like.

Whether Saddam having gas in violation of the cease fire agreement is enough to start a war is highly debatable.

	05-03-2003 01:22									#77
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber If you are counting CS gas as WMD then every American soldier that has gone through basic training has been targets of WMD's. Unless the Navy and Air Force pansies skipped out on the gas chamber during training.

Air Force does, we don't.

I was the only one who didn't throwup or "leak" in my division.

Still Hated it.

	05-03-2003 01:23									#78
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Terrorists have used nerve gas in a subway. It wasn't very effective, compared to explosives anyway.

Edited for grammar.

Last edited by Sandman on 05-03-2003 at 01:33

	05-03-2003 01:25									#79
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sandman Terrorists have used nerve gas in a subway. It wasn't very effective, compared to a explosives anyway.

There was a Japanese group that used sarin in the subway there, I believe they screwed up in the attack but still a lot of people became ill.

	05-03-2003 03:08									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger No, none of the inert gases are toxic.

Breath them to the exclusion of O2 and you're a dead man.

	05-03-2003 03:11									#81
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by gunkulator Police use gas all the time to break up riots with a nary a peep from concerned individuals. In the end, gas saves lives. Period. I see this feigned outrage as yet another excuse to paint the US as the evil bully in this matter. If the bullets do start flying, the most humane thing that can happen is a swift end to the conflict with the smallest loss of life possible. If gas is a means to that end, I say we use it.

This is the best summary of this thread I have seen.

	05-03-2003 03:12									#82
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

100 % O2 is toxic too...first you get high and after that it causes braindamage