Kerry and Iraq

[Phi for All]

This is what terrorism is ALL about; getting us to spend billions on something that costs them thousands. That's why it makes no sense to react the way we have.

 

I think a great response would be to announce... no more announcements. Limit the military presence to defensive positions and fund covert operations to deal with terrorism in the way it understands best. Special Forces, SAS, IMF (j/k), whatever it takes. Al Qaeda, you'll never see it coming....

[Pangloss]

Maybe we get Barney to rig up some kind trap with his reverse screwdriver.

[Douglas]

Tell me Phi, was the postman that handled a letter with Anthrax and died a few days later....Just a hoax?

 

I don't believe some of the statements you make to deflect the argument......like "this is a science board" No Sh** Dick Tracy.....so I believe everything. BTW, show me a post that says biological weapons are ineffective.....even a post that says chemical weapons are ineffective.

 

Have you ever figured out why they wanted to ban chemical and biological warfare after WW1? Is it because it killed or maimed 20 people?

[budullewraagh]

actually, chemical weapons in the first world war were quite ineffective. they killed very few and maimed a few more. their only effective use was to make people run from their trenches

[budullewraagh]

ah, and here is a source:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/weaponry/gas.htm

Diminishing Effectiveness of Gas

 

Although gas claimed a notable number of casualties during its early use, once the crucial element of surprise had been lost the overall number of casualties quickly diminished. Indeed, deaths from gas after about May 1915 were relatively rare.

 

It has been estimated that among British forces the number of gas casualties from May 1915 amounted to some 9 per cent of the total - but that of this total only around 3% were fatal.

[Phi for All]

Tell me Phi' date=' was the postman that handled a letter with Anthrax and died a few days later....Just a hoax?

 

I don't believe some of the statements you make to deflect the argument......like "this is a science board" No Sh** Dick Tracy.....so I believe everything. BTW, show me a post that says biological weapons are ineffective.....even a post that says chemical weapons are ineffective.

 

Have you ever figured out why they wanted to ban chemical and biological warfare after WW1? Is it because it killed or maimed 20 people?[/quote']Chemical weapons killed people in WWI whose options were stay in the trenches and die of mustard gas, or leave the trenches and get mowed down by conventional weaponry. It was a dastardly way to die.

 

Using bio and chem weapons on a mobile citizenry is ineffective, except when people like you make the terrorists jobs easy by promoting fear, ignorance and gullibility.

 

Jesus, 1 postman=mass destruction....

[Sayonara]

Tell me Phi, was the postman that handled a letter with Anthrax and died a few days later....Just a hoax?

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?

 

I don't believe some of the statements you make to deflect the argument......like "this is a science board" No Sh** Dick Tracy.....so I believe everything. BTW, show me a post that says biological weapons are ineffective.....even a post that says chemical weapons are ineffective.

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.

 

 

Have you ever figured out why they wanted to ban chemical and biological warfare after WW1? Is it because it killed or maimed 20 people?

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.

[Pangloss]

What about the generally-accepted numbers for the gas attacks on the Kurds in the 1980s, which are in the tens of thousands (50-100k)?

[Sayonara]

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.

[Phi for All]

What about the generally-accepted numbers for the gas attacks on the Kurds in the 1980s, which are in the tens of thousands (50-100k)?

You mean when Saddam was on our side, fighting against Iran, with whom some of the Kurds were siding?

 

Again, when you go into a village looking for Iranian soldiers to kill, and you use poison gas to flush them out, the enemy has the option of fleeing into your machine gun bullets or staying where they are and breathing the gas. Breath it long enough and you can't run anywhere anymore. The 5000 Kurds of Halabja died because they stayed put and breathed the gas. It was only effective because rifles and machine guns waited for those who tried to flee. Iranian soldiers entrenched in Kurdish villages died alongside the Kurds as well. We don't count them because Iran and Iraq were at war. The Kurds were considered collateral damage at the time, and Saddam considered them traitors for siding with the enemy, but since Saddam is now the enemy....

[Pangloss]

You mean when Saddam was on our side, fighting against Iran, with whom some of the Kurds were siding?

 

It was a technical question, not a political statement. I'm not defending Douglas's position; on the contrary I find the position presented by you and Sayonara to be compelling.

 

I'm skeptical, of course, this being a new argument to me. I'm familiar with the basic limitations of chemical and biological weapons, but some of the specifics here are new to me, and the debate approach is unfamiliar. But it seems reasonable enough at first glance.

 

I still think I've struck a note of significance with the Kurd attack. One previous post suggested that a mass chemical attack on a city would produce casualties in the mere double digits. Yet here we see how an attack produced tens of thousands of casualties. Certainly your point about them being forced to stay in place is relevent, but I don't think it's hard to envision other, similar scenarios causing similar effectiveness.

 

There's no guarantee that an atomic bomb will kill millions either. For one thing, you have to drop it on the target. Dump it in the water or deep in the desert and you're looking at dead fish and cacti. (grin) So if we're looking at the *potential* casualties of a weapon system, the above example would seem to suggest that the earlier posit that a drop on a city would only kill 20 people is an exaggeration on the low side. The number could clearly be higher.

 

Getting back to the larger issue, which seems to be "are chemical and biological weapons worthy of condemnation, and should they be studied for methods of defense", I think your reasoning that these weapons should NOT be labelled in the same way as nuclear weapons is valid. But I can't help but see them in a more serious light than I view something like a machine gun. Yes, an army with thousands of machine guns is potentially more dangerous, but you haven't convinced me (yet) that it's an easier weapon to wield.

 

As for the "disruptive" qualities of chemical and biological weapons, I think we all agree on that. But I think my point was missed: These qualities add to the overall significance of these weapons, raising their importance above that of machine guns.

[Pangloss]

By the way, perhaps we should call chemical and biological weapons "weapons of mass destruction", and nuclear weapons "armageddon weapons" or something equally more severe. After all, nothing about the actual phrase "weapons of mass destruction" (aside from its socio-political *context*) is actually contradicted by your arguments.

 

But of course that context cannot be ignored, so I'm not adverse to suggesting that chemical and biological weapons should be excluded from that category. But I'm also not convinced they should be treated on the same footing as bullets and bombs.

[Phi for All]

I apologize if I seemed to be defending Saddam in my earlier post. I abhor the thought of killing groups of helpless people, but I'm old enough to remember when Iran and the Ayatollah were the bad guys and Hussein was trying to keep them from spreading an Islamic Jihad through Iraq.

 

Chemical and biological weapons are certainly capable of killing plenty of people, but what I object to is when optimum numbers are bandied around like it would always happen that way. The masses have a kind of Hollywood version of their capabilities in mind and when you couple their relative cheapness in materials and labor with overestimation of their effects, you give the terrorists exactly what they need.

 

Certainly if terrorists were able to affect optimum conditions for the use of chem/bios, and couple that with a way to keep people from leaving the areas of contamination, it would be much more effective. Given how difficult a plan like this would be to implement, why would they even bother?

[Sayonara]

I still think I've struck a note of significance with the Kurd attack. One previous post suggested that a mass chemical attack on a city would produce casualties in the mere double digits. Yet here we see how an attack produced tens of thousands of casualties.

No we don't. We see how multiple military applications over a long period of time cause tens of thousands of casualties.

 

 

So if we're looking at the *potential* casualties of a weapon system, the above example would seem to suggest that the earlier posit that a drop on a city would only kill 20 people is an exaggeration on the low side.

No, it really isn't on the low side. It's pretty accurate. Anthrax is simply not suited to that kind of delivery system.

 

 

Yes, an army with thousands of machine guns is potentially more dangerous, but you haven't convinced me (yet) that it's an easier weapon to wield.

A gun is an easier weapon to acquire, maintain, transport and replenish.

 

 

By the way, perhaps we should call chemical and biological weapons "weapons of mass destruction", and nuclear weapons "armageddon weapons" or something equally more severe. After all, nothing about the actual phrase "weapons of mass destruction" (aside from its socio-political *context*) is actually contradicted by your arguments.

Chemical and biological weapons do not cause destruction.

 

 

But of course that context cannot be ignored, so I'm not adverse to suggesting that chemical and biological weapons should be excluded from that category. But I'm also not convinced they should be treated on the same footing as bullets and bombs.

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.

[Pangloss]

I apologize if I seemed to be defending Saddam in my earlier post.

 

Believe me, I don't think that at all.

 

 

Chemical and biological weapons are certainly capable of killing plenty of people, but what I object to is when optimum numbers are bandied around like it would always happen that way. The masses have a kind of Hollywood version of their capabilities in mind and when you couple their relative cheapness in materials and labor with overestimation of their effects, you give the terrorists exactly what they need.

 

Yah, it's an excellent point, and well said.

 

The sucky thing about it is that that very Hollywoodization of the issue contributes to the "disruptive" aspect of those weapons. It's a nasty self-perpetuating problem, because it's not like you can tell people that these things are "safe" either! So intelligent people are put in the ridiculous position of seeming to defend the undefendable, and if they don't, misappropriation occurs (resources allocated poorly). It's really unfortunate, no question about it.

 

 

Given how difficult a plan like this would be to implement, why would they even bother?

 

Yah, well that's what I wondered, but when you look at a case like the Kurds, they certainly made sense to Hussein, and he certainly got his money's worth out of them. Of course, he likely was expecting far more than he got, but that would be true of nukes as well (great for blowing up cities, but perhaps not so great for destroying entire groups of predominantly rural peoples).

 

 

No we don't. We see how multiple military applications over a long period of time cause tens of thousands of casualties.

 

Yah, I got that point, but it's not every day that a single machine gun mows down 5,000 people. Not to be gruesome about it, but what I guess I'm looking for is specific evidence that the gas attack had a higher cost-per-death ration than a standard military pogrom. (I can’t believe I just said that. I’m gonna need a shower now….)

 

 

Chemical and biological weapons do not cause destruction.

 

Well, in terms of terminology (chuckle), they cause destruction in the sense of denying access to an area. Whether you’re cleaning out sarin gas or rebuilding your house, the effect on the occupant is the same.

 

How about the “weapons of mass disruption” term? Any objection to that?

 

 

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.

 

Okay, and I’m not comfortable with that either. Although I admit you have a point, both here and with the “no destruction” argument.

[Douglas]

Sayonara & Phi for All

 

Yikes, where's my Tranxene?

 

I'm not going to argue with you guys, Phi for All is good at putting up a smoke screen but needs help with logical thinking (remember the lies/liar and the pol's ?)

 

Anyway, I think you guys should read some reliable sources like the "center for disease control"' and others. The CDC takes Anthrax and other weapons very seriously

 

Figure out if Stalin had chem and bio weapons that were useless. Just assume that every bio/chem scientists in the world are stupid.....get the REAL scoop from Phi for All's tabloids.

Sayonara now says that only 5000 kurds were killed per pop, let's see now 2 pops and we got 10,000.............plus the one's we scared out of the trenches.

Oh well, you can't take this too serious. (chuckling)

[Mad Mardigan]

Using bio and chem weapons on a mobile citizenry is ineffective, except when people like you make the terrorists jobs easy by promoting fear, ignorance and gullibility.

 

The Bhopal disaster which was a release of methyl isocyanate which happened because water got into the storage tanks and they used substandard safety equip. But the release of the gas was good enough to kill 50000 and hurt 600000 people. So yes a release of chemical gas could kill a mobile city.

[Douglas]

The Bhopal disaster which was a release of methyl isocyanate which happened because water got into the storage tanks and they used substandard safety equip. But the release of the gas was good enough to kill 50000 and hurt 600000 people. So yes a release of chemical gas could kill a mobile city.

Thanks Mr. Mardigan..........I forgot about Bhopal

[Mad Mardigan]

Union Carbide is still paying out for that.

[Douglas]

You mean when Saddam was on our side' date=' fighting against Iran, with whom some of the Kurds were siding?

 

Again, when you go into a village looking for Iranian soldiers to kill, and you use poison gas to flush them out, the enemy has the option of fleeing into your machine gun bullets or staying where they are and breathing the gas. Breath it long enough and you can't run anywhere anymore. The 5000 Kurds of Halabja died because they stayed put and breathed the gas. It was only effective because rifles and machine guns waited for those who tried to flee.[/quote']

Yup, the Iraqi soldiers flushed them there Iranian soldiers out with gas, then shot them...Yeah sure.

 

Prepared by Alex Atroushi

 

This page is dedicated to the people of Halabja who on March 16th, 1988 suffered the worst chemical attacks committed by the Iraqi regime. On that day, 5,000 innocent civilians, 75% women and children, immediately perished. This was not the only chemical attack ordered by Saddam, it was just the worst.

Bloody Friday

Chemical massacre of the Kurds by the Iraqi regime

Halabja-March 1988

http://www.kdp.pp.se/chemical.html

 

[Sayonara]

How about the “weapons of mass disruption” term? Any objection to that?

Works for me, but we need an alternative to the acronym WMD.

 

 

Anyway, I think you guys should read some reliable sources like the "center for disease control"' and others. The CDC takes Anthrax and other weapons very seriously

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.

 

 

Sayonara now says that only 5000 kurds were killed per pop, let's see now 2 pops and we got 10,000.............plus the one's we scared out of the trenches.

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.

 

 

The Bhopal disaster which was a release of methyl isocyanate which happened because water got into the storage tanks and they used substandard safety equip. But the release of the gas was good enough to kill 50000 and hurt 600000 people. So yes a release of chemical gas could kill a mobile 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.

 

 

Yup, the Iraqi soldiers flushed them there Iranian soldiers out with gas, then shot them...Yeah sure.

etc etc

plus tear-jerker pictures that illustrate none of the points I made

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.

[Phi for All]

The Bhopal disaster which was a release of methyl isocyanate which happened because water got into the storage tanks and they used substandard safety equip. But the release of the gas was good enough to kill 50000 and hurt 600000 people. So yes a release of chemical gas could kill a mobile city.

MM, I guess the lesson here is try not to let terrorists build a major pesticide plant next to your city.

 

Douglas, I could bring up evidence provided by a former CIA officer that shows most of the 5000 Kurds who died in Hallabja died of blood agents, which is not a property of the mustard gas Saddam was using. It was more likely the Iranian gas that killed the Kurds in Hallabja. Both sides were using it on each other during the time. But that's not really the point.

 

I'm sick of trying to bring you back on track and remind you that we are talking about the practicallity of terrorists using chem/bio weapons against us, and how much damage it does to the masses to believe that these invisible agents could be used effectively by those terrorists. All of your examples are simply examples of how dangerous chem/bios could be, when in reality it takes more expensive means and trained people to deal with than the terrorists have access to. Since you persist in ignoring what I'm trying to say, I have to believe you are simply trolling for a political argument rather than trying to understand a scientific point.

 

One of my favorite parts of your argument is where you accuse me of putting up a smoke screen to cover your own smoke screen, the one where you compare terrorists to the sheer might and vast resources of Stalin. Over and over we've tried to point out that bio/chems for the terrorists are psychological weapons because we're including them in the list of WMDs. As long as we keep doing that, the terrorists don't have to expose themselves to the hideous cost of making them viable. I do appreciate your reiteration of some of the best points Sayonara³ and I were trying to make. Apparently, since you repeat some great ones as being bad examples, you really don't understand the issue.

 

When you combine that sort of ignorance with a little knowledge of what bio/chem weapons could conceivably do under optimum conditions by trained professionals with the financial resources of a national military and try to suggest that Al Qaida could pull it off here in the States, you just put yourself on Al Qaida's payroll. Congratulations, the few people here who believe your propoganda are now terrified.

[Sayonara]

Apparently' date=' since you repeat some great ones as being bad examples, you really don't understand the issue.

[/quote']

To be honest, the first clue should have been when he said that WMD are defined as ABCs.

[Phi for All]

Using the Bhopal incident was insulting on many levels, wouldn't you agree? Like an Al Qaida cell could strap a pesticide plant to their backs and run through downtown Manhattan.

 

Next they'll bring up Hitler....

[Mad Mardigan]

 

Again' date=' 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 [u']terrorist weapons[/u]. 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.

 

 

Very few cities with less then 50,000 in them? There is thousands of them in the USA. I live in the Charlotte surrounding area, there is over 1.2 million people here with 2 nuclear plants. I wonder how many cities have plants that produce chemicals, or use chemicals like in Bhopal did. You are saying it is ineffective to use weapons like that, well Bhopal was an accident (not really, more like poor management), but chemicals are used in all sorts of industries located beside major cities. So not a direct release with a crop duster, but a hit on an existing plant to create the lethal poison.

 

Using the Bhopal incident was insulting on many levels' date=' wouldn't you agree? Like an Al Qaida cell could strap a pesticide plant to their backs and run through downtown Manhattan.

 

Using the Bhopal incident was insulting on many levels, wouldn't you agree? Like an Al Qaida cell could strap a pesticide plant to their backs and run through downtown Manhattan.

[/quote']

 

Its not insulting to use a know chemical disaster that could easily been recreated by terrorist, and I guess you missed the whole point of my post, of course you cant go running thru a place with a pesticide plant on your back, but you could use one already in use.