If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message , Chad Irby writes There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon. Define "defensive weapon". That's not my problem. The people who contend that they *are* "defensive" have to manage that one. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Simon Robbins" wrote: "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. Tell that to French and Belgian farmers. Within the last few years there have been reports of plowing and rock clearing in fields resulting in blister agents being unearthed, with attendant casualties. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Chad Irby
writes In article , "Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message , Chad Irby writes There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon. Define "defensive weapon". That's not my problem. How about "one used only to repel invasion"? The people who contend that they *are* "defensive" have to manage that one. I can see plenty of scope for "defensive" CW, even for "defensive" BW (though that's stretching it a lot). Never heard of the "chemical minefield"? -- 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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message , Chad Irby writes The people who contend that they *are* "defensive" have to manage that one. I can see plenty of scope for "defensive" CW, even for "defensive" BW (though that's stretching it a lot). Never heard of the "chemical minefield"? 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... -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Simon Robbins" wrote in message ... "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. What is much more worrisome is the use of that chemical mortar round in another environment entirely. Against well-trained and prepared combat troops, chems are not much of a deterrent--witness the willingness of the coalition forces to go into Iraqi territory during ODS, not to mention during the latest event (where our forces did indeed believe they were facing a chemical capable opponent). But that mortar round (or three or four)), given to the likes of an Abbu Abbas, or an Abu Nidal, or some Anser Al Salaam nutcase, and detonated in a major metropolitan area (no mortar tube required) could kill quite a few folks, and cause widespread panic, etc. Brooks Si |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
In message , Chad Irby
writes In article , "Paul J. Adam" wrote: I can see plenty of scope for "defensive" CW, even for "defensive" BW (though that's stretching it a lot). Never heard of the "chemical minefield"? 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... Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq. (Not that Iraq would have minded such a capability, but they never managed to develop it) -- 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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message , Chad Irby writes 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... Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq. Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel has chemical weapons. And, by the way, Iraq demonstrated quite directly in Gulf War I that they had missiles with enough range (and, despite those sanctions that the UN didn't quite enforce, were building missiles with overly-long ranges). (Not that Iraq would have minded such a capability, but they never managed to develop it) Except that they did, and demonstrated such in the early 1990s. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message m... In article , "Paul J. Adam" wrote: In message , Chad Irby writes 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... Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq. Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel has chemical weapons. You are joking, right? They are a signatory of the Chemical Warfare Convention, but they have never ratified it; they have refused to even sign the 1972 Bio Weapons Convention. Senior US military personnel testified before Congress as early as 1974, claiming that the Israelis possessed an offensive chemical capability. They have been very tight lipped about their CBW programs, but they have also been tight lipped about their nuclear capability as well. See: www.bsos.umd.edu/pgsd/people/ staffpubs/Avner-CBWart.pdf Brooks snip |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message m... Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel has chemical weapons. You are joking, right? They are a signatory of the Chemical Warfare Convention, but they have never ratified it; they have refused to even sign the 1972 Bio Weapons Convention. Senior US military personnel testified before Congress as early as 1974, claiming that the Israelis possessed an offensive chemical capability. They have been very tight lipped about their CBW programs, but they have also been tight lipped about their nuclear capability as well. See: www.bsos.umd.edu/pgsd/people/ staffpubs/Avner-CBWart.pdf Okay, there's the rumor, but this is a pretty important quote *from* that paper: "For this reason, Israelšs motivations in the CBW fields, defensive or offensive, cannot be inferred merely from the existence of research activities involving potential CBW agents. To do so would be an unjustified leap. If additional relevant information is available regarding weaponization or large-scale agent production, however, it could alter the significance of the basic research." Thy're surrounded by folks who have been spending huge amounts of money on way to kill Israelis. They'd be stupid to not work on defensive tech. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vic Tatelman's Pictures of "Dirty Dora", "Dirty Dora II" and the Surrender Mission | Adam Lewis | Military Aviation | 0 | February 3rd 04 03:39 PM |