Tweet
This issue often turns up in Iraq threads, but I think that it deserves deeper discussion.
It is perfectly clear to me that chemical and biological weapons types are not nearly as destructive as nuclear weapons, or even as destructive as many types of conventional weapons.
As far as I can see, chemical and biological weapons have been hyped up to levels which are completely unrelated to the actual danger posed. This is partially accomplished by their 'linkage' to nukes, partially due to the fact that they're banned and partially the result of false or misleading media statements about the effectiveness of the weapons. These include wild assertions that a drop of VX could kill 10000, or flask of anthrax could wipe out an entire city.
I don't deny that chemical agents have their uses, since they are useful against poorly equipped masses of infantry (like the Iranians' 'final offensives'). But that is still a specialised role, and even then they're not that effective.
As terrorist weapons, gases have a bad record. Several operatives releasing sarin gas into Tokyo's subway system in a coordinated attack killed 11 people. A single lunatic with a carton of flammable liquid killed over 100 in Seoul's subway. The anthrax attacks in the US killed 8 people, and caused widespread disruption, but two people with a sniper rifle killed more people, and at least as much disruption.
I am extremely disappointed that I have not seen the weapons of mass destruction label attacked in the media. It really is nothing but propaganda.
What's worse, is that while Iraq is getting in severe trouble for having chemical and biological weapons, or the means to make them (better known as an infrastructure), more and more countries drift towards acquiring nuclear weapons. The situation is akin to complaining that the lifejackets aren't comfortable whilst the Titanic is sinking. I fear that our leaders are starting to believe their own propaganda, which is even worse than them not believing it.
It is perfectly clear to me that chemical and biological weapons types are not nearly as destructive as nuclear weapons, or even as destructive as many types of conventional weapons.
As far as I can see, chemical and biological weapons have been hyped up to levels which are completely unrelated to the actual danger posed. This is partially accomplished by their 'linkage' to nukes, partially due to the fact that they're banned and partially the result of false or misleading media statements about the effectiveness of the weapons. These include wild assertions that a drop of VX could kill 10000, or flask of anthrax could wipe out an entire city.
I don't deny that chemical agents have their uses, since they are useful against poorly equipped masses of infantry (like the Iranians' 'final offensives'). But that is still a specialised role, and even then they're not that effective.
As terrorist weapons, gases have a bad record. Several operatives releasing sarin gas into Tokyo's subway system in a coordinated attack killed 11 people. A single lunatic with a carton of flammable liquid killed over 100 in Seoul's subway. The anthrax attacks in the US killed 8 people, and caused widespread disruption, but two people with a sniper rifle killed more people, and at least as much disruption.
I am extremely disappointed that I have not seen the weapons of mass destruction label attacked in the media. It really is nothing but propaganda.
What's worse, is that while Iraq is getting in severe trouble for having chemical and biological weapons, or the means to make them (better known as an infrastructure), more and more countries drift towards acquiring nuclear weapons. The situation is akin to complaining that the lifejackets aren't comfortable whilst the Titanic is sinking. I fear that our leaders are starting to believe their own propaganda, which is even worse than them not believing it.
Comment