Sayonara

Well that helped to clarify your point.

For a circle of 2m radius: Area = Pi x r2 Area = 3.142 x 4 Area = 12.6m2

Use 3.142 for Pi.

Because there are more fundamental physical entities than particles.

I think you've hit your wall already to be honest.

Works for me, but we need an alternative to the acronym WMD. And well they should, because it is a powerful agent that can devastate livestock. However the distinction that has been made again and again is that as a weapon against human populations it is NOT VERY GOOD AT ALL. It's not our fault you have no understanding of epidemiology. Hurrah for missing the point Each "pop", as you so irreverantly call them, caused 5000 deaths because there were at least 5000 people there who could not get away. There is a massive difference between the release of large quantities of a concentrated, militarised nerve agent against a population in a confined area, and the random scattering of chemical or biological agents within a city. Again, hurrah for missing the point. Nobody is saying that there aren't any chemical or biological agents that can't kill a city (or rather, a good chunk of one. There are very few developed cities with only 50,000 people in them.) What we are saying is that they make ineffective and inefficient terrorist weapons. The only use they have is in name-dropping, where you make the ignorant believe you can strike at them at any time with lethal precision. I think you'll find that the Halabja 5,000 were protestors against Saddam's rule who were all in a confined zone which was ideal for deployment of a nerve agent by sustained bombardment over several days. Many died because they were already in underground bunkers when the attacks got underway and were unable to escape when they realised the chemical weapons were in use. Are you seeing the pattern yet? Again, this was military action carried out with a relatively high-grade weapon that was prepared and handled by trained professionals and cost a fortune. In no way does this demonstrate that weaponised chemicals make effective terrorist weapons.

I know, there's just no reason for it whatsoever

No we don't. We see how multiple military applications over a long period of time cause tens of thousands of casualties. No, it really isn't on the low side. It's pretty accurate. Anthrax is simply not suited to that kind of delivery system. A gun is an easier weapon to acquire, maintain, transport and replenish. Chemical and biological weapons do not cause destruction. They aren't treated the same as bullets and bombs. They are for stressing logistical networks and area denial - that puts them in the same category as mines.

If you "mark all forums read" while there are posts in the validation queue, the ones in the queue are marked as read too. This is a bug in vB that they have been asked to fix more times than I care to remember.

No more than 5000 at any one time, I think you'll find. The application of a chemical weapon by a military force against a large and "unnatural" gathering of people is not really comparable to a random terrorist attack on a normal day-to-day city.

No. He wasn't "millions of people" either. You are perpetuating pointless scaremongering. The facts are that you need to get a large dose of spores to be at risk of infection, very few people are actually susceptible anyway, and the window of opportunity for treatment after infection is fairly good. As Phi already pointed out, it's far more cost effective to either blow something up, or just PRETEND you have a biological/chemical weapon the effects of which people like yourself are reasonably ignorant. Terrorists are literally known for using terror tactics. Funny huh? You've already responded to one of mine that said pretty much exactly that. You ignored my subsequent reply, but you're still arguing the same points with Phi, so I have to assume you cannot answer. No. Weapons are not allowed or banned based on the number of fatalities they cause. It's because they cause undue suffering to the people who are affected. The strategic role of biological and chemical weapons in warfare is twofold: 1) Disrupt the enemy by placing intensive burdens on their logistical operations, 2) Deny tactically advantageous areas through contamination. This does not work in cities because (a) the population is transitory and (b) there is no closed resource logistic that can be compromised.

What dozen people? Were they all opening the same letter, or are these actually practical examples of a Weapon of Virtually No Destruction being deployed? Since you raised this with me originally I would point out that my post said "very few biological agents". Anthrax dropped on a city from a plane would do **** all to the population. You'd have about 20 deaths, if any.

You've had TWO YEARS.

Anyone who voted in the same thread that was posted in General Discussions will have to vote again, as I have merged the threads.

North Korea for President!

That's no guarantee that there is no free will, because your traveller has no way of knowing whether or not he witnessed the only possible future.

Try nominating someone who is actually elligible.

Just to reiterate, there are very few biological agents that can be used as WMDs, and they are difficult to implement in that fashion even under ideal conditions. The same is largely true of chemical weapons. It's also fairly obvious that very few actually cause what we would traditionally call "destruction". These weapons are designed for Area Denial, not mass destruction.

Because it makes them feel like they have a big willy.

Posting the same poll in more than one thread is counter-productive. People will generally vote in one or the other, then one gets deleted - so you lose some of your results. Or people vote for opposing options to deliberately mess up your results.

He's tricksy enough to weasel his way back in, even if he is not that popular.

Can people please stick to commenting on recent or possible site changes in this thread.

Yes, you have an attachment limit. You can still upload them elsewhere and link to them though. Seek out free image hosting services.

We have a couple of politics channels in the UK, including the much-funnier-than-it-sounds "Parliament Channel". I'm not sure they are that useful to people who aren't already inclined to watch, and the sort of person who does watch them is generally already better informed than most. But at least it's there.

Which makes it a fairly useless comparison. A higher proportion of drink drivers are killed or cause fatalities during accidents than sober drivers - that is the important part.