BREAKING NEWS: nerve gas found in road side bomb in Iraq

[Kuciwalker]

The fact that it had other effects does not make it WMD. Was the Chernobyl explosion WMD?

[Japher]

I don't think WMD count as such when you use them against communist

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Japher
I don't think WMD count as such when you use them against communist

Oh.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich

So the pesticides we spray on crops are also WMD?

They could certainly be used that way. Just look at what DDT and other pesticides have done, and they wheren't even used as a weapon.

Although agricultural herbicides and pesticides are far, far, far more tame than agent orange which was designed to turn lush jungle into deadlands.

Plus, have we even used cluster bombs in the past decade or two? I know we didn't use them in the first Gulf War.

They where used in afghanistan, atleast.

They cause "mass destruction" in large quantities

Yes... this is why they are called 'cluster bombs' - they are a large quantity of bombs packaged together.

Besides, the definition of WMD is - get this - weapons of mass destruction. NBC weapons can all be used for that easily and efficiently.

...

Nukes are WMD because they are a simple, efficient way of kill mass numbers of people (primarily innocents).

Given that, chemical weapons are not as "WMD-ish" as nuclear and biological weapons, but still are.

So it's the sheer destructive force of a weapon that makes it a WMD? Then surely the air-fuel bombs must be a WMD?

Yes, I know - your answer will of course be no. But it's a strange scenario where the 'mother of all bombs' is not a weapon of mass destruction, but an antique artillery shell with nerve gas in it is.

[Kuciwalker]

Because the antique artillery shell is part of a class of weapons that lend themselves easily towards wiping out massive numbers of people with minimal effort.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich
OK, it's simple then. Agent Orange is not WMD. We were trying to kill frigging plants, not people.

1. They wheren't spraying plants. They where spraying the jungle in it's entirety - that means the villages and people in it.

2. Even if it where to only kill plants, that would leave everyone starving and unable to grow more food.

3. It's results where not unnattended, but ignored. It is impossible that the scientists who created this chemical where not aware of it's poisonous and toxic nature. They where designing it to to annhilate all life. The fact that they intentionally left animal (human) life out of their equation does not excuse it.

Because the antique artillery shell is part of a class of weapons that lend themselves easily towards wiping out massive numbers of people with minimal effort.

Kinda like depleted uranium bullets?


But I'd say that all weapons lend themselves towards wiping out massive numbers of people with minimal effort, anyways.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
1. They wheren't spraying plants. They where spraying the jungle in it's entirety - that means the villages and people in it.

So? We spray pesticides on entire farms.

Intent is what matters, not effect.

2. Even if it where to only kill plants, that would leave everyone starving and unable to grow more food.

Which is still a) not WMD and b) not true. Do you really think they got their food from the thick jungle shrub-thingies?

3. It's results where not unnattended, but ignored. It is impossible that the scientists who created this chemical where not aware of it's poisonous and toxic nature. They where designing it to to annhilate all life. The fact that they intentionally left animal (human) life out of their equation does not excuse it.

They were designing it to destroy foliage. They couldn't have cared less about whether or not it killed animals.

But I'd say that all weapons lend themselves towards wiping out massive numbers of people with minimal effort, anyways.

But some more than others.

This whole argument is basically pointless anyway, as anyone (important) means NBC weapons when they refer to WMD.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Originally posted by General Ludd
1. They wheren't spraying plants. They where spraying the jungle in it's entirety - that means the villages and people in it.

So? We spray pesticides on entire farms.

On entire crops, actually...

But, uhm, there aren't any villages hidden in a farmer's field.

Which is still a) not WMD and b) not true. Do you really think they got their food from the thick jungle shrub-thingies?

They grow their food in the jungle, yes. Where else are they going to get it? You think they walk 100 miles to market every day?

Farmlands that where sprayed with it are still barren and unusable, by the way.

They were designing it to destroy foliage. They couldn't have cared less about whether or not it killed animals.

'Wether or not', indeed...

and that's also what I just said.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
On entire crops, actually...

But, uhm, there aren't any villages hidden in a farmer's field.

But if a person happened to be there, it would suddenly be a WMD attack?

They grow their food in the jungle, yes. Where else are they going to get it?

Parts of the jungle that they'd cleared. Generally, agriculture doesn't work in a rain forest.

Farmlands that where sprayed with it are still barren and unusable, by the way.

Point?

'Wether or not', indeed...

and that's also what I just said.

If I shoot a gun at random, not intending to kill you, is that murder or manslaughter?

(hint: it's manslaughter)

[General Ludd]

Point?

You seemed to be saying that farmlands where not sprayed with it.

If I shoot a gun at random, not intending to kill you, is that murder or manslaughter?

(hint: it's manslaughter)

I don't think any court would call that manslaugher. Unless maybe if the person doing it was mentally handicapped.

Of course, you worded that a bit funny. You forgot to mention that someone gets killed, and that the person firing randomly with no intent to kill was pointing the gun in the direction of a crowd.


Anyways, You have changed your definition of WMDs to 'intent to kill' now?

Intersting.

[Dr Strangelove]

Saddam Hussein was a thug, right? I've dealt with a few thugs in my time and I can state with reasonable certainty that thugs are not big on documentation. If they were theu would have gone into corporate accountaincy.

[Agathon]

Personally I don't know why chemical weapons are considered WMD.

Because it's a matter of international law. They, along with nukes and bioweapons were given that name back in the 70s IIRC.

Only nukes are really weapons of mass destruction in the ordinary meaning of that term. Bioweapons are unproven and most of the money spent on such things goes on nukes for the simple reason that nukes work.

Chemical weapons are just a kind of artillery. They are only useful when you are faced with massed concentrations of infantry opposing each other. That's why they were used in WWI and why Saddam used them (because that's the sort of war he faced). The kill ratio of chemical artillery shells is about 2 soldiers per shell I think - hardly a scary terrorist weapon. After all the AUM cult used sarin in a subway station and only managed to kill about ten people - a nail bomb would have killed more.

It's all smoke and mirrors - chemical weapons aren't going to be used by terrorists to kill thousands because they aren't particularly efficient. Blowing up people with conventional explosives would kill more.

If this isn't a leftover from the Iran-Iraq war then it the bombers probably made it themselves. The AUM cult did that - it's not that hard, and incidentally shows up the administration's case that Saddam would give chemicals to terrorists for what it is - why would they bother when it would be easier to make them themselves and they don't work very well anyway?

The right are going to have to do better than this.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It was a chemical weapon. The purpose of that weapon was to turn sprayed areas into a desert. The fact that it kills people may have just been a "lucky" accident, but I doubt it. I think more likely, the U.S. didn't want to deal with international oprobrium for using chem weapons on humans.

It wasn't a weapon at all, by definition. It was a defoliant. A glorified weed killer. As a weapon, it would be useless, since anyone sprayed with it (including my brother) was perfectly capable of shooting at you for days, weeks, months and years. In fact, many people with significant AO exposure will die of old age with no verifiable direct effects from AO.

Anyway, even if you ignore that, the U.S. recently sprayed Cuba with a type of plant scale that has infected their crops. In the 1970s, the U.S. infected the Cuban pig heards with Swine Fever, and a hlaf million animals had to be destroyed.

Documentation from something other than Castro and his proxies? Cuba likes to blame every failing of their system on the US.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I don't think any court would call that manslaugher. Unless maybe if the person doing it was mentally handicapped.

Of course, you worded that a bit funny. You forgot to mention that someone gets killed, and that the person firing randomly with no intent to kill was pointing the gun in the direction of a crowd.

Perhaps it's a bad example, my point was that there has to be an intent to harm.

Anyways, You have changed your definition of WMDs to 'intent to kill' now?

Intersting.

Never changed it. I'm explaining what "weapon" means. I assumed it was obvious that something that isn't a weapon is, by extension, not a weapon of mass destruction.

[General Ludd]

Perhaps it's a bad example

No, it was a perfect example.


It shows how absurd their plea of defense is. That because they willfully ignored the damage it does to people, they did not intend for it to happen.