The WMD's May Have Been Found
- Thread starter Mr Manifesto
- Start date
-
- Tags
- wmds
geni said:
Become strategic? Are you reading the words here or just playing some kid's game?
A mortar is a strategic weapon. It is a conventional weapon when typically armed as an HE device. Add chemicals, as I said, and you up the harm and the nomenclature. HE is strategic, chemical is not. Why are you unable to grasp that concept?
ssibal
Unregistered
S
geni said:
They were banned because Iraq agreed to their being banned, not because they were banned per se. This was not just any international treaty, it was the terms of a cease fire. You cannot equate breaking a treaty to not kill whales with breaking the terms of a cease fire.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Troll said:
Sorry a standard mortar armed with a standard HE charge is strategic? I sorry do some of these words have diferent meanings across the atlantic?
mortar= a weapon with a fixed elvation of 45 degrees often carried by infantry
strategic= not battlefield.(think total war bombing enemy cites etc)
geni said:
A freaking rifle is a strategic weapon. Does it kill or maim more than the targeted person? No. So what goes on in your mind is not reality. Conventional weaponry is not a WMD. If said weapon is made to kill or wound or produce or inflict more casualties than the weapon itself can create then it is a WMD. Several hundred pounds of explosives can create the boom of a nuke but create only casualties within the radius of the boom. A nuke creates more and as such can hold the title of wmd. a stick of dynomite is a weapon, as is a grenade. Add to them a chemical or radiological component and they can kill or injure more than the expected blast radius and as such are a wmd.
Hell according to you a good Marine sniper is a wmd as he can jikk mire than one person before being stopped.
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
ssibal said:
who said anything about killing whales? I find the US's chemical and biological weapons programs intersting (you are aware that some of the new crowd controll measures you country is trying to develope are illeagal under international law? You and most of europe invaded Iraq the first time for ocupying a forign state quite rightly you are now ocupying a forign state....
geni said:
Look, it's okay for you to hate war and such, but for pity's sake think before yoiu try to make a post here and argue a point, will ya?
And a mortar, like most weapons can be adjusted, it does not have a fixed elevation. where the hell are you getting this weak info from?
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2003
- Messages
- 28,209
Troll said:
So you agree with my defition of stategic good.
The mortar defintion was overkill. What i used is technicaly the correct defition but real world morters rarely (probably never) ferfill this defention. the point is that most morters are small and by any reasonble defition of the word fit in the tatical weapon braket (with exceptions noted previuosly)
ssibal
Unregistered
S
geni said:
Such as?
No, we invaded Iraq because they ANNEXED Kuwait.
geni said:
No I do not agree with your weak definition. that was made obvious earlier. And you've yet to define a WMD. Why? Because you're afraid the lame answer you give will get beaten down?
A mortar as designed has a limited kill radius. Add chemicals and you can increase that. You can apply that to all other weapons that go boom. Yet for some unkown reason, you want to deny that it applies to mortars and you've yet to degfne a wmd so it's a play as you go thing for you and I'm not freaking buying into the stupidity behind that. I'm sorry but you have to give an answer before you can critique the ones given by others
Hutch
A broken man on a Halifax pier, the last of Barret
Geni seems to be on the right track when it comes to strategic vs tactical. The common military usage is that tactical is intimately committed to the battlefield and the immediate support elements therein, while strategic is to weaken the enemies' capabilities to continue the fight. For example, Attack Helicopters and A-10 Warthogs are in general tactical weapon systems used to attack battlefield targets and opposing Command Posts/Forward Ammo and/or Logistics bases. The B-2/B-52 type assets, now being supplanted by Cruise Missiles, are used as Strategic Weapons (after all, they do fall under the Strategic Air Command) to attack enemy shipping, airfields, plants, bridges and Rear Command/Logistics. Is there some overlap? Of course, but the terms are well understood in the way geni is using them.
Therefore, a mortar is a tactical weapon as it is designed for battlefield use to damage local enemy units within the battle zone. That a tactical weapon can fire a chemical weapon does not by necessity make it a strategic weapon, IMHO. After all, we called the weapons in Germany "Tactical" Nukes, after all.
I find it interesting troll, that you knock down or question the offered definitions of WMD while not attempting to offer one of your own. You will probably argue that it is the responsibility of Zero and geni to develop one, but I would rebut that in the interest reasonable debate a clear definition of what is being argued would be beneficial, no matter who defines it. I await with curiousity for your definition.
Since I put that out there like that, I guess I should offer one of my own. Off the top of my head (and trust me, there is precious little remaining on top of my head), I would define WMD as "Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear (CBW) weapons that are produced and maintained as either a Strategic Deterrent against attack/invasion or as a first-strike Strategic capability against a opposing power and are designed to produce large numbers of casulities and damage to the opposing nation's infrastructure." Given that the rounds found could not be projected over the border (unless right on the border) and were designed to be used with a weapon of limited range and capability, then no, I don't believe we can call these WMD's. Of course, I await your critique of my definition and your own submission.
The bigger question is, are 3 dozen mortar rounds 10 years old with a "blistering agent" (which is designed to incapacitate but not necessarily kill, if I remember my briefings correctly) worth 500 lives, $87B and the potential for increased terrorist recruiting? To me, the answer is no--but I am willing to be swayed once we find all those liters of Sarin gas mentioned by Sec. Powell and more importantly, the means of producing (and MAINTAINING) such weapons.
Time will tell, and the story is not yet written. Give it 20-30 years. We are impatient. Old man History is not.
Therefore, a mortar is a tactical weapon as it is designed for battlefield use to damage local enemy units within the battle zone. That a tactical weapon can fire a chemical weapon does not by necessity make it a strategic weapon, IMHO. After all, we called the weapons in Germany "Tactical" Nukes, after all.
I find it interesting troll, that you knock down or question the offered definitions of WMD while not attempting to offer one of your own. You will probably argue that it is the responsibility of Zero and geni to develop one, but I would rebut that in the interest reasonable debate a clear definition of what is being argued would be beneficial, no matter who defines it. I await with curiousity for your definition.
Since I put that out there like that, I guess I should offer one of my own. Off the top of my head (and trust me, there is precious little remaining on top of my head), I would define WMD as "Chemical, Biological, or Nuclear (CBW) weapons that are produced and maintained as either a Strategic Deterrent against attack/invasion or as a first-strike Strategic capability against a opposing power and are designed to produce large numbers of casulities and damage to the opposing nation's infrastructure." Given that the rounds found could not be projected over the border (unless right on the border) and were designed to be used with a weapon of limited range and capability, then no, I don't believe we can call these WMD's. Of course, I await your critique of my definition and your own submission.
The bigger question is, are 3 dozen mortar rounds 10 years old with a "blistering agent" (which is designed to incapacitate but not necessarily kill, if I remember my briefings correctly) worth 500 lives, $87B and the potential for increased terrorist recruiting? To me, the answer is no--but I am willing to be swayed once we find all those liters of Sarin gas mentioned by Sec. Powell and more importantly, the means of producing (and MAINTAINING) such weapons.
Time will tell, and the story is not yet written. Give it 20-30 years. We are impatient. Old man History is not.
"Conventional weapons" what the USA possesses and are OK to use.
"Deterents" what the USA possesses and are OK to use if their homeland or allies are invaded or seriously threatened.
"WMDs" what other countries, that the USA wishes to invade, possess. (Actually they don't actually have to possess any - the USA saying that it is so, is good enough.)
"Deterents" what the USA possesses and are OK to use if their homeland or allies are invaded or seriously threatened.
"WMDs" what other countries, that the USA wishes to invade, possess. (Actually they don't actually have to possess any - the USA saying that it is so, is good enough.)