The WMD's May Have Been Found

[Troll]

Nope the key word it tactical. In my view "tactical nuke" is an oxymoron.

Yeah well the question is, in your view is a tactical nuke still a wmd like a regular nuke of say more than 100 kilotons? Or can a smaller 20kiloton nuke qualify or does a nuke have to be in the megaton range. Or is a nuke a nuke and as such a wmd but you still contend that smaller amounts of chemical weapons will change the tune you sing. How much vx gas is required to be a wmd? I have to ask since you are applying qualifying factors and I need to know what those factors are to get a better understanding. I mean you must have some sort of amount in mind as you surely wouldn't be posting in a manner that merely allowed you to change your mind repeatedly to suit your claims when the information coming in may eventually include your previously stated qualifying facotrs, right?

 

[Bjorn]

It does, however prove that he has the stuff, doesn't it? And was that not the claim made?

Shouldn't that be had the stuff (if this is considered to be 'the stuff') back in 1988 or so?

 

[geni]

I am yet to encounter a nuke that I would not consider strategic (some of the bunker busting nukes that the US seems to be considering developing might be tatical but that is another debate) for all intants and perposes all nukes are WMD.

For biological it depends on what is being used. In the case of small pox enough to infect a couple of people would be enough. For most of the other the stuff would have to be in a weaponised form exist in reasonble amounts (an enverlope full of anthrax in not a WMD enough anthrax to fill the tank on a crop spraying plane is)

For chemical agents it depend on the chemical the delivery system (if there is one) and the amount. The blitering agent found here it not a WMD unless you have it in very large quantites. Some of the more powerful nerve agents are WMD in even quite small amounts (fill a scud with VX nerve agent that is a WMD no question).

I think it is important to point out that I do not hold the view that Iraq did not have WMD. I reserve judgment on that for the time being.

 

[Troll]

Shouldn't that be had the stuff (if this is considered to be 'the stuff') back in 1988 or so?

Actually it should be considered as him having had them as right now he's got squat but a little space in a cell.

 

[Troll]

I am yet to encounter a nuke that I would not consider strategic (some of the bunker busting nukes that the US seems to be considering developing might be tatical but that is another debate) for all intants and perposes all nukes are WMD.

For biological it depends on what is being used. In the case of small pox enough to infect a couple of people would be enough. For most of the other the stuff would have to be in a weaponised form exist in reasonble amounts (an enverlope full of anthrax in not a WMD enough anthrax to fill the tank on a crop spraying plane is)

For chemical agents it depend on the chemical the delivery system (if there is one) and the amount. The blitering agent found here it not a WMD unless you have it in very large quantites. Some of the more powerful nerve agents are WMD in even quite small amounts (fill a scud with VX nerve agent that is a WMD no question).

I think it is important to point out that I do not hold the view that Iraq did not have WMD. I reserve judgment on that for the time being.

But an envelope of mustard gas can not create the area of damage that a mortar round can. so while I may agree with you on the delivery amount or capability of an envelope, it's not like we found a bunch of as yet to be sent mail. Nope, we found devices that explode and have a higher radius of deployment.

So again, I ask you, how big of a deployment is needed to qualify as a wmd to you? This is why I asked about nukes as you seem to feel that area or amount of damage capability is a key factor. So if a mortar round with chemical weapons is not enough, is an artillery shell? If not then what level of weapon makes a chemical weapon a wmd? simple question. No tricks up my sleeve. The only thing to fear here is that your answer may screw you over if something larger is found and you have previously qulaified such a weapon to be a wmd

 

[geni]

If not then what level of weapon makes a chemical weapon a wmd? simple question. No tricks up my sleeve. The only thing to fear here is that your answer may screw you over if something larger is found and you have previously qulaified such a weapon to be a wmd

And once again the answer is strategic weaponry. Strategic is an accepted militery defintion why do you have such a problem with this?

 

[Troll]

And once again the answer is strategic weaponry. Strategic is an accepted militery defintion why do you have such a problem with this?

I don't have an issue with it. But you've yet to offer what you consider to be "strategic weaponry" So until you do offer that answer you cannot claim an enevelope of anthrax or a tactical nuke or anything in between to be a wmd as you've not shown the grounds for your reasoning.

Give me a range and an area of effect.

 

[geni]

Strategic=Intended to destroy the military potential of an enemy

Substute material for military and you have WMDs

Range for WMD: anything down to 0 (a suitcase nuke is a WMD)

Area of effect not: posible to give a meaningfull ansewer. I mean what would you say the area of effect of injecting 50 people with small pox would be?

 

[Zero]

There is obviously a lower limit to what ytou would call a WMD, right Troll? I'm seriously asking here.

 

[crackmonkey]

So - using geni et al's pet definition of WMD, if a chemical or biological weapons factory was found it couldn't be classified as evidence of WMD unless it was determined that they were to be loaded into containers over a certain volume?
Nerve gas or biological agents alone don't comprise aren't the issue in your world, merely the size of the shells they're loaded into?
How utterly absurd.

 

[Zero]

So - using geni et al's pet definition of WMD, if a chemical or biological weapons factory was found it couldn't be classified as evidence of WMD unless it was determined that they were to be loaded into containers over a certain volume?
Nerve gas or biological agents alone don't comprise aren't the issue in your world, merely the size of the shells they're loaded into?
How utterly absurd.

The amount of agent does matter...unless you claim that a hypodermic needle full of poison is the same as a warhead, and a single warhead with no delivery system is the same as a warehouse full of warheads attached to missles.

 

[crackmonkey]

In your hypothetical cases, I'd say that the needle contained poison yet not as much as a poison-filled warhead, and your warhead was a warhead without a delivery system... just as a small amount of WMD is not as dangerous as a large amount of WMD. This is trivially obvious...
No one said that a small amount of chemical weapons was the same as a large amount - I don't think anyone on my side of this discussion made any kind of equivalence whatsoever.
You seem to be agreeing with my observation that those who agree with your definition of WMD couldn't classify a chem weapons factory as being a WMD factory unless they found the shells the chemicals were to be loaded into. Do you really believe this absurdity? More to the point, do you really think that is the definition of WMD the US and the UN went by? You really believe that if the weapons inspectors found thousands of shells filled with nerve agent they would be acceptable as long as they were under a given volume?

 

[Zero]

In your hypothetical cases, I'd say that the needle contained poison yet not as much as a poison-filled warhead, and your warhead was a warhead without a delivery system... just as a small amount of WMD is not as dangerous as a large amount of WMD. This is trivially obvious...
No one said that a small amount of chemical weapons was the same as a large amount - I don't think anyone on my side of this discussion made any kind of equivalence whatsoever.
You seem to be agreeing with my observation that those who agree with your definition of WMD couldn't classify a chem weapons factory as being a WMD factory unless they found the shells the chemicals were to be loaded into. Do you really believe this absurdity? More to the point, do you really think that is the definition of WMD the US and the UN went by? You really believe that if the weapons inspectors found thousands of shells filled with nerve agent they would be acceptable as long as they were under a given volume?

Do you understand what the words 'mass' and 'destruction' mean? Maybe when you do, what I posted will make sense to you.

 

[Troll]

Strategic=Intended to destroy the military potential of an enemy

Substute material for military and you have WMDs

Range for WMD: anything down to 0 (a suitcase nuke is a WMD)

Area of effect not: posible to give a meaningfull ansewer. I mean what would you say the area of effect of injecting 50 people with small pox would be?

You just described an automatic rifle. Good. All armed Iraqis had wmds according to your description

 

[Troll]

There is obviously a lower limit to what ytou would call a WMD, right Troll? I'm seriously asking here.

Yeah. the pepper spray some claim is a wmd I would disagree with. But then, if they feel that it is, then they can't rightfully be making claims to the contrary about what was found in Iraq, huh?

 

[geni]

You just described an automatic rifle. Good. All armed Iraqis had wmds according to your description

Show how an automat rifle fits those descriptions

 

[geni]

So - using geni et al's pet definition of WMD, if a chemical or biological weapons factory was found it couldn't be classified as evidence of WMD unless it was determined that they were to be loaded into containers over a certain volume?
Nerve gas or biological agents alone don't comprise aren't the issue in your world, merely the size of the shells they're loaded into?
How utterly absurd.

You are now talking about the capcity to produce WMD. If such a factory existed then Iraq would have had the caperbility to produce WMD and I find it hard to belive it would not have used it.

 

[Troll]

Show how an automat rifle fits those descriptions

"Intended to destroy the military potential of an enemy." An automatic rifle does that. You kill the people, you kill the military potential

"Range for WMD: anything down to 0" range for an automatic rifle, varies from 0 and up.

Any other easy questions like this?

 

[Troll]

Do you understand what the words 'mass' and 'destruction' mean? Maybe when you do, what I posted will make sense to you.

Define mass. All weapons can create destruction. Adding certain chemicals can expand the mass or number of deaths or injuries a weapon is capable of.

 

[Zero]

Yeah. the pepper spray some claim is a wmd I would disagree with. But then, if they feel that it is, then they can't rightfully be making claims to the contrary about what was found in Iraq, huh?

Huh?? What sort of strawman is this?