The WMD's May Have Been Found

[Zero]

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.

Really? A sharpened spoon handle can cause destruction? Dip it in cow poo and it becomes a WMD?

 

[Troll]

Huh?? What sort of strawman is this?

It's no strawman on my part.

If pepper spray is going to be considered a chemical weapon, then we cannot deny a true chemical weapon has been found, can we?

 

[geni]

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

Define the difference between potential and actuality.

You must understand the difference between planes disigned to bomb cities and planes desighned for battlefied use. Why do you find it so difficult to extend this to chemical and biological weapons.

 

[Zero]

It's no strawman on my part.

If pepper spray is going to be considered a chemical weapon, then we cannot deny a true chemical weapon has been found, can we?

I'm trying to figure out what pepper spray has to do with a WMD...and not every chemical weapon can be considered a WMD, so I don't see the inconsistancy...

 

[geni]

If pepper spray is going to be considered a chemical weapon, then we cannot deny a true chemical weapon has been found, can we?

No one is denying that a chemical weapon has been found (assing the reports are correct).

 

[Troll]

Really? A sharpened spoon handle can cause destruction? Dip it in cow poo and it becomes a WMD?

No, dip it in cow poo and it only increases the effect it may have on the single target in can affect at a time. Load mustard gas into a mortar and you expand the number of people that can be killed or injured by the weapon.

Is this a difficult concept to grasp for you? I mean the whole expanding the kill capacity of a weapon and all. See most mortars kill or wound only in the radius of the blast or the boom of the weapon. Add mustard gas and you can kill or wound people within that range and even further with a slight breeze.

Now is mustard gas a wmd? Is Sarin or VX? Or are they only considered to be so by you if the weapon they are attacjed to has a big radius to begin with?

 

[Troll]

No one is denying that a chemical weapon has been found (assing the reports are correct).

Yes a chemical weapon has been found, but some claim it's not a wmd and is nothing more than pepper spray. The chemical weapon found is classified as a wmd. And that last part is what you and others are denying.

 

[Zero]

Yes a chemical weapon has been found, but some claim it's not a wmd and is nothing more than pepper spray. The chemical weapon found is classified as a wmd. And that last part is what you and others are denying.

I don't see how any caustic chemical in any amount qualifies. Since a can of pepper spray doesn't count, according to you, then the amount DOES matter, not just the presence of any chemical.

 

[geni]

Load mustard gas into a mortar and you expand the number of people that can be killed or injured by the weapon.

Load a mortar shell with TNT (or whatever high explosive they use now) and you will kill a lot more people than you will with gunpowder. There is nothing special about a chemical weapons ability to kill more people.

 

[Zero]

No, dip it in cow poo and it only increases the effect it may have on the single target in can affect at a time. Load mustard gas into a mortar and you expand the number of people that can be killed or injured by the weapon.

Is this a difficult concept to grasp for you? I mean the whole expanding the kill capacity of a weapon and all. See most mortars kill or wound only in the radius of the blast or the boom of the weapon. Add mustard gas and you can kill or wound people within that range and even further with a slight breeze.

Now is mustard gas a wmd? Is Sarin or VX? Or are they only considered to be so by you if the weapon they are attacjed to has a big radius to begin with?

If it can kill or would in a LARGE area, it counts. If it is only going to affect people in a football field sized area, it doesn't count(IMO).

 

[Zero]

Load a mortar shell with TNT (or whatever high explosive they use now) and you will kill a lot more people than you will with gunpowder. There is nothing special about a chemical weapons ability to kill more people.

And since Iraq was legally allowed to have high explosive warheads for their mortars, I don't see how a blister agent is somehow worse, since it kills less people.

 

[Troll]

I don't see how any caustic chemical in any amount qualifies. Since a can of pepper spray doesn't count, according to you, then the amount DOES matter, not just the presence of any chemical.

Well if you wish to play the sematic game we can find a hair salon and say we found chemical weapons. But I prefer to use this site as a basis for what constitutes a chemical weapon

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cw/agent.htm#b03

 

[RussDill]

Let's be realistic for a moment, shall we? We have heard a bunch of reports that turned out to be bogus. We have no idea who buried them, or why. America's military has a hard time keeping track of its own gear, why should be expect perfection from Iraq? And, please, spare me the "any noncompliance is worth invading over." Than's a load of crap. 36 shells lasts them 3 minutes, and then what? Wow, I'm so scared, whatever shall we do here in America, they could have launched those shells 6 WHOLE MILES!!!!!! Yep, that was the big threat.

Iraq is a pretty big place, its likely that munitions are buried all over the place, and some probably won't be found for hundreds of years. If they are all buried, then Iraq did not pose a threat for WMD. However, under UN agreements, they were required to point inspectors to these burial sites. If they would have done this, Saddam and his sons probably could have still been in power today. Why didn't they do that? Probably because they wanted to stand up to the western world, be their own independant nation, don't take crap from anybody, etc.

 

[Zero]

Well if you wish to play the sematic game we can find a hair salon and say we found chemical weapons. But I prefer to use this site as a basis for what constitutes a chemical weapon

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/cw/agent.htm#b03

Again, 'chemical weapon' and 'weapon of mass destruction' are not the same thing.

 

[Zero]

Iraq is a pretty big place, its likely that munitions are buried all over the place, and some probably won't be found for hundreds of years. If they are all buried, then Iraq did not pose a threat for WMD. However, under UN agreements, they were required to point inspectors to these burial sites. If they would have done this, Saddam and his sons probably could have still been in power today. Why didn't they do that? Probably because they wanted to stand up to the western world, be their own independant nation, don't take crap from anybody, etc.

And, of course, maybe they really didn't know where they were all buried. It happens all the time in America, so why hold Iraq to a higher standard?

 

[Troll]

Load a mortar shell with TNT (or whatever high explosive they use now) and you will kill a lot more people than you will with gunpowder. There is nothing special about a chemical weapons ability to kill more people.

But you have not expanded the weapon's capability to kill or maim by simply loading it with it's normal capacity of explosive. again your definition can be applied to a rifle. By your standards a 5.56 mm weapon is just a weapon that shoots a bullet. Make it an automatic and it becomes a weapon of mass destruction. Use an M-60 which is an automatic 7.63 mm weapon and you're using a weapon of mass destruction.

that's all based upon your previous postings.

Now you say there's nothing special about the weapon if it uses chemical components, like it doesn't add to the kill or injury factor, but shrapnel only travels so far, a breeze can carry a chemical agent for an undetermined distance, thus expanding the radius.

 

[Troll]

And, of course, maybe they really didn't know where they were all buried. It happens all the time in America, so why hold Iraq to a higher standard?

It does? When was the last time we buried anything that could not be found, outside of Hoffa but then that was done my criminals.

 

[Zero]

*snip* a breeze can carry a chemical agent for an undetermined distance, thus expanding the radius.

And decreases its effectiveness by a huge factor. Chemicals disperse, you know.

 

[Zero]

It does? When was the last time we buried anything that could not be found, outside of Hoffa but then that was done my criminals.

We do lose stuff all the time, in warehouses and stuff. Wouldn't it be EASIER to lose something buried 10 years ago in a hole, than something in a warehouse?

 

[Troll]

Again, 'chemical weapon' and 'weapon of mass destruction' are not the same thing.

Don't just tell me that and expect me to buy it. Define the two.