Abject surrender

In article ,
"Simon Robbins" wrote:

Then we have a contradiction if those in power knew Saddam's supposed
arsenal was limited to defensive weapons, no?

There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...

There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.

Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon designed
to kill or maim those you're fighting?

Si

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...

There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological
weapon.

Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon
designed
to kill or maim those you're fighting?

Scale. Look up the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"

The CO

In article ,
"Simon Robbins" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...

There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.

Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon designed
to kill or maim those you're fighting?

Usual problems:

- Effectivity is often indeterminate (you don't always know how much
lag there might be between contact and incapacitation).

- Targetted area is again difficult to constrain. If the wind shifts,
you can be looking at having to deal with your weapon turned back on
you, or you end up taking out your own people who might be in close
proximity to the intended target (close as in miles, rather than meters).

- Area effects can mean that you end up with your own territory being
denied to you for some time, assuming that you even meant to effect your
own territory, rather than just your opponent's.

In article ,
"Simon Robbins" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
. com...

There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.

Why? How is it any different in that respect from any other weapon designed
to kill or maim those you're fighting?

It's not, except that there are all sorts of international treaties
aimed at eliminating them.

And the whole idea of "defensive" weapons meant to kill large numbers of
people (and which, by the way, had been used for very *undefensive*
attacks on Kurdish civilians by Hussein's troops) is just silly.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Simon Robbins" wrote:
Then we have a contradiction if those in power knew Saddam's supposed
arsenal was limited to defensive weapons, no?

There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.

Define "defensive weapon". Is there such a thing as a "defensive"
firearm? If so, why cannot CW/BW be defensive in use also?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"The CO" wrote in message
...
Scale. Look up the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"

Considering we're talking about battlefield weapons I don't think the term
"Mass" Destruction necessarily applies, and has in fact been largely
mis-used throughout the past year with reference to Iraq capability (or lack
thereof.)

A mortar shell containing blister agents for example is certainly not a WMD
in the truest sense, but would certainly fall within our leaders'
definitions.

Si

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
- Targetted area is again difficult to constrain. If the wind shifts,
you can be looking at having to deal with your weapon turned back on
you, or you end up taking out your own people who might be in close
proximity to the intended target (close as in miles, rather than meters).

All good points, but we're not limiting our definitions of WMDs to materials
that have long half-lives or permanent effects. Mustard gas, blister agents,
etc. are all banned same as other NBC weapons, but while nasty don't have
the long-lasting effects that some other materials do.

Si

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"The CO" wrote in message
...
Scale. Look up the definition of "Weapon of Mass Destruction"

Considering we're talking about battlefield weapons I don't think the term
"Mass" Destruction necessarily applies, and has in fact been largely
mis-used throughout the past year with reference to Iraq capability (or
lack
thereof.)

I see your point, but I suggest to you that even relatively old chemical
agents like
mustard are persistent and contaminate vegetation and the like. Nasty
stuff.

A mortar shell containing blister agents for example is certainly not a
WMD
in the truest sense, but would certainly fall within our leaders'
definitions.

I'd suspect that some of the things they had were rather nastier than
mustard.
I personally think that whatever they had went to Syria. We're probably a
bit
lucky Saddam thought he had rather more capability than he really did.

Not that I give a ****. He's history and good riddance.

The CO

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
- Targetted area is again difficult to constrain. If the wind shifts,
you can be looking at having to deal with your weapon turned back on
you, or you end up taking out your own people who might be in close
proximity to the intended target (close as in miles, rather than
meters).

All good points, but we're not limiting our definitions of WMDs to
materials
that have long half-lives or permanent effects. Mustard gas, blister
agents,
etc. are all banned same as other NBC weapons, but while nasty don't have
the long-lasting effects that some other materials do.

That is not really true. Mustard and phosgene can do long term damage, both
to the local environment (look at the historical record of some of the areas
of France that were hit heavily by such agents--vegetation not growing back
for decades, being stunted, etc.). And if you doubt they have lingering
effects against humans, I had a great uncle who could have been evidence
otherwise--he got gassed during WWI, but managed to survive the war.
Unfortunately it still killed a him a few years later, after almost
literally "coughing his lungs up". The term WMD actually comes from the old
Soviet terminology, and did indeed refer to chemical, biological, and
nuclear weapons, regardless of the size of the delivery platform or its
intended target. That is still the generally accepted definition of the
term.

Brooks


Si