"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
"defensive" any more...

When I raised the question, it was in the context of Saddam's alleged
battlefield weapons, since we're now led to believe our wise and glorious
leaders knew that any "45 minute" claim regarded such battlefield weapons.
(But yes, you could always drive an artillery unit to the border and fire a
3km mortar over the edge.) Besides, we've always described our nuclear
arsenals as "deterents", and as such defensive by means of neutralising the
threat of attack.

Si