Quick Quiz

Éomer of Rohan

I find it really ironic that Vorbis should use the French as a case in point and then go on to cite his opinion that no European nation has used [edit]nuclear[/edit] weapons of mass destruction since the occasion has not arisen; need I point out that the US offered nuclear missiles to the French government after Dien Bien Phu fell? The French were understandably horrified and refused. Then having acquired their own, they did not use them in Algeria where they fought a protracted was which resulted in the defeat of the Foreign Legion and the withdrawal. The Brits didn't use them in the Falklands or in any of the various wars (more usually guerilla campaigns mind you) they fought in their retreat from Empire. The Germans never got a hold of them, neither did the Spanish nor any other European nation unless you count Russia.

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Yes. That is excactly what I am saying.



No. I did not say it was untrue, and I've no inclination spending any more of my time to go back and quote my own posts again to try and explain what I said.

jc

Sorry you simply do not make sense at all. How can something be factually incorrect and true? BTW i have re-read your original replies and if by that statement you say that it is probably contextually incorrect well then I may have some sympathy with your point of view. But to maintain that someting is factually incorrect and yet is not untrue is a complete contradiction.

In re-reading your posts I see no dispute with regard to the points raised in relation to WMD.

i.e. Did the US use Nuclear,Chemical and Bio weapons in the past. I see no comment or reply from you wher you say that this did not happen. I see planty of comments where you say, and I para-phrase, "Ah that was years ago" and "It's not relevant now" and "Sure most countries have skeletpns in the cupboard" etc.....

However this goes nowhere near saying that the "fact" that the US used these weapons is not well established. The original poster did not put a time frame on when the weapons were used. so therfore I would conclude that the facts are accepted andtrue and to say that the point is 'factually incorrect' is simply not true.

Maybe you should backup your point with some references or links as most previous posters have done!

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
i.e. Did the US use Nuclear,Chemical and Bio weapons in the past. I see no comment or reply from you wher you say that this did not happen.

Weapons - Yes. No question. All three categories have been used by the US as a form of weaponry.

Weapons of Mass Destruction - Yes for nuclear, yes for chemical, no for biological. Not one single example that has been quoted qualifies as use of a weapon of mass destruction - no more than the anthrax attacks which occurred immediately after 9/11 was. To be classifiable as use of a weapon of mass destruction, you would need to be unleashing a killing/maiming effect on a scale comparable to a nuclear explosion. This has not been done. The term has come into use to describe attacks of a scale beyond those obtainable by conventional weapons.

The argument against possessing and using the substances in smaller quantities is that :

1) nuclear weaponry doesnt scale down
2) There is no obstacle to scaling up the other weapons

Thus, while possession of anthrax spores by a nation such as the US would be construed as "WMD capability", the use of the spores does not necessarily mean use of a WMD. Using them on a very large scale would be needed for that.

So, for example, while I will fully agree that the Chicago malaria experiments were horrific, they are not use of a WMD. Indeed, the closer you get in your example to cases which could be close to WMD usage (such as the dengue fever over Nicaragua), the sketchier and less conclusive the evidence gets.

Also - just to clear one thing up....the smallpox blankets case you mentioned was by the English forces while the US was still a colony (around 1754 - 1757) - not by the US forces after the nation gained its independance.

Kinda ruins the notion that it was the US who's responsible, doesnt it.

jc

vorbis

oh dear, can you least put some context in your arguments rohan? No country in the world is going to use nuke in a localised war. The US has never done so. Its only used them once in a world war. What I was suggesting was that Germany would not have hesitiated to derop one on Britain in WW2 and vice versa.

Éomer of Rohan

Context; US government offers use of US nuclear weapons to the French in Indo-China. Period.

That the US would do this at all, is al I really need.

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Weapons - Yes. No question. All three categories have been used by the US as a form of weaponry.
Weapons of Mass Destruction - Yes for nuclear, yes for chemical, no for biological.Not one single example that has been quoted qualifies as use of a weapon of mass destruction - no more than the anthrax attacks which occurred immediately after 9/11 was. To be classifiable as use of a weapon of mass destruction, you would need to be unleashing a killing/maiming effect on a scale comparable to a nuclear explosion.

Says who? Where are your references for this?

So, for example, while I will fully agree that the Chicago malaria experiments were horrific, they are not use of a WMD. Indeed, the closer you get in your example to cases which could be close to WMD usage (such as the dengue fever over Nicaragua), the sketchier and less conclusive the evidence gets.

I did not quote those examples.

Also - just to clear one thing up....the smallpox blankets case you mentioned was by the English forces while the US was still a colony (around 1754 - 1757) - not by the US forces after the nation gained its independance.

Depending on where you look for this information they are Quoted as British and British-American for example and I quote "Two centuries later, in the 1754-1763 French and Indian War, British-American forces gave smallpox-infected blankets to an enemy Indian tribe, decimating a village with the disease. The use of smallpox in germ warfare is nothing new"[/B][/QUOTE]

Kinda ruins the notion that it was the US who's responsible, doesnt it.

Not really. If you want to have a serious debate on this issue I will. If you want to have a childish debate on it I would suggest continuing to use silly comments like that quoted above.

As I have previously said in my postings (and listed for reference) The USA used a number of Biological weapons in Vietnam (and other countries).Now apart from the devestating effect it had on the foliage of the country it also had a devistating effect on the local population and the American Soliders. There is still a veterans movement trying to get the US government to compensate them for the damge they believe was caused to them by Agent Orange.

BTW Agent Orange was in use in Colombia as recently as 8 years ago. As recently as 2000 Clinton was forced to admit the following.....

"Bill Clinton has conceded that the US plan to use microbial agents to eradicate drug crops may have an impact on biological weapons proliferation" See here for the full text. Now this was in the middle of Americas 'War on Drugs'. Now here we have a US president saying that the use of these weapons may have an impact on the proliferation of Biological Weapons.

Carpo

Correct me if I'm wrong but Agent Orange itself not a biological weapon. Its a chemical defoliant (with some other nasty side affects). Which bio weapons used in Vietnam are you reffering to?

Hobart

Yes it is classified as a chemical and it's primary purpose is to de-foliate a large area.

However, if you look at the links above, it effects are also biological. Which has caused the US and the UN to stop using it on the basis that it was in breach on the Non-Proliferation of Biological weapons.


The following is a list of Biological diseases offically recognised by the American Veterans Asscoiation as been linked to Agent Orange:

Diabetes, Prostate cancer, Peripheral Neuropathy (acute and sub-acute) (one year), Spina Bifida in children of Vietnam Veterans, Chloracne, Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL), Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, mycosis fungoides, and old terms such as lymphosarcoma, reticulum cell sarcoma and Sternberg’s sarcoma, Porphyria cutanea tarda, Respiratory cancers including cancer of the lung, bronchus, larynx, trachea

Multiple myeloma Hodgkin’s disease Soft Tissue Sarcomas, including:

· Adult fibrosarcoma
· Dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans
· Malignant fibrous histiocytoma
· Liposarcoma
· Leiomyosarcoma
· Epithelioid leiomyosarcoma (malignant leiomyoblastoma)
· Rhabdomyosarcoma
· Ectomesenchymoma
· Angiosarcoma (hemangiosarcoma and lymphangiosarcoma)
· Proliferating (systemic) angioendo- theliomatosis
· Malignant glomus tumor
· Malignant hemangiopericytoma
· Synovial sarcoma (malignant synovioma)
· Malignant giant cell tumor of tendon sheath
· Malignant granular cell tumor
· Alveolar soft part sarcoma
· Epithelioid sarcoma
· Clear cell sarcoma of tendons and aponeuroses
· Extraskeletal Ewing’s sarcoma
· Congenital and infantile fibrosarcoma
· Malignant ganglioneuroma

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Hobart
Yes it is classified as a chemical and it's primary purpose is to de-foliate a large area.

However, if you look at the links above, it effects are also biological. Which has caused the US and the UN to stop using it on the basis that it was in breach on the Non-Proliferation of Biological weapons.

Doesn't it have to be based on something biologial to be called a biological weapon, e.g., anthrax, smallpox, etc? I mean, all chemical weapons have biological effects, but they are not biological.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Hobart
However, if you look at the links above, it effects are also biological.

That’s kind of stretching things, tbh. That would make standard firearms biological weapons as gunshot wounds have been linked to gangrene and other biological infections, by your same logic.

“ A biological weapon is defined here as the use of living organisms or their derivatives to cause incapacitation or death in humans.”

http://www.einaudi.cornell.edu/9-11/content/pdf/bioterrorism_vogel.pdf

And I don’t think Agent Orange could be defined as such.

Thus it’s probably a little unfair to accuse the US of the use of biological weapons too (except perhaps against its own people... ever wonder what happened with those mail originated anthrax attacks, over a year ago? Ahem... insert conspiracy theory here :rolleyes: ).

Hobart

Originally posted by SkepticOne
Doesn't it have to be based on something biologial to be called a biological weapon, e.g., anthrax, smallpox, etc? I mean, all chemical weapons have biological effects, but they are not biological.

Fusarium oxysporum and other mycoherbicides are used in Agent Orange. They are Fungi. Again look at the links above to see that Agent Orange is a biological weapon.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Hobart
Fusarium oxysporum and other mycoherbicides are used in Agent Orange. They are Fungi. Again look at the links above to see that Agent Orange is a biological weapon.

Is a shell with a depleted uranium case a nuclear weapon then?

Hobart

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Is a shell with a depleted uranium case a nuclear weapon then?

I don't know. What do you think? I would say no. I have been posed the questions on Biological Weapons and I have answered them. It's not a mine is bigger then your's competition. As I have said Agent Orange is a biological weapon. It has biological entities. What is your point?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Hobart
What is your point?

A shell with a depleted uranium case has nuclear entities. Does that make it a nuclear weapon by your same logic?

Agent Orange is a defoliant rather than a weapon. However, I’ll accept that it can, and was, used as a weapon. But if you accept the definition that I previously presented of biological weapons as the use of living organisms or their derivatives then Agent Orange was a chemical weapon rather than biological, as it’s primary means of causing death in humans was chemical and not biological.

Otherwise, you can equally argue that the use of depleted uranium cases is nuclear, on the basis of the cancer related illnesses and death that are likely to follow in areas subjected by bombing by such ordinance.

Hobart

Originally posted by The Corinthian
A shell with a depleted uranium case has nuclear entities. Does that make it a nuclear weapon by your same logic?

Agent Orange is a defoliant rather than a weapon. However, I’ll accept that it can, and was, used as a weapon. But if you accept the definition that I previously presented of biological weapons as the use of living organisms or their derivatives then Agent Orange was a chemical weapon rather than biological, as it’s primary means of causing death in humans was chemical and not biological.

Otherwise, you can equally argue that the use of depleted uranium cases is nuclear, on the basis of the cancer related illnesses and death that are likely to follow in areas subjected by bombing by such ordinance.

But it is not just me that is saying that Agent Orage is a Biological Weapon. If it was then your logic, loose as it is, would fit. I see nothing quoted or referenced that says that a Biological weapon, in order to be classified as a biological weapon, must have x quantities of y. Or that a Chemical weapon must have x quantities of y to be classified as a chemical weapon. By your own reference

“ A biological weapon is defined here as the use of living organisms or their derivatives to cause incapacitation or death in humans.”

this is what Agent Orange does as I have clearly stated earlier. It contains Biological entities, as I have referenced earlier. The UN and US both agreed to suspend the granting of Aid for Use of Agent Orange, in Columbia, because it was sucessfully argued that Agent Orange was in breach of the Proliferation of Biological weapons treaty. So as you can see it is not just me that is of the opinion that it is a Biological Weapon. But the UN and US seem to feel the same way.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Hobart
Fusarium oxysporum and other mycoherbicides are used in Agent Orange. They are Fungi. Again look at the links above to see that Agent Orange is a biological weapon.

No. See here for info on Agent orange. It is a mix of two chemicals.

You may be thinking of "Agent Green".

Hobart

Sorry. I was refering to Agent Green when I quoted the Fungi. Both Agent Green and Agent Orange were used in Vietnam. With Agent Green being subsequently used in Colombia.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobart
Says who? Where are your references for this?

You are asking me to back up an assertion that a weapon of mass destruction needs to cause destruction on a massive scale - that it needs to be of the order of a nuclear strike.

You want references for this?

You've got to be kidding. You want references to clarify that a WMD should do what its name implies?

Surely you should be supplying references for your understanding of what "Mass Destruction" means, if not destruction on a scale not achievable by conventional weaponry.

If it is not a question of scale, then exactly what is it?


As for this whole Agent Orange / Agent Green thing....

Agent Orange is a chemical defoliant - as already determined. Agent Orange is the defoliant about which there is much allegation that the US deliberately used knowing its side effects. They were at least negligent and uncaring.

Now, Agent Green comes into the picture. Agent Green is bad because its biological in nature. But Agent Green is not a human targetted attack. It is a defoliant. It kills plants. To date, no-one has offered a single link to show that it is anything other than a defoliant, or that it is harmful to humans.

So now, given that you've asked for me to provide references for my understanding that a WMD does what its name says, I would ask you to provide references showing that a defoliating effect counts as "mass destruction", or that Agent Green has some human-destrimental side effect that the US government were/are aware of.

Oh - and just to clear one thing up. Your reference for the smallpox...check the dates that you included in your quote. Spot something? America was a colony of Great Britain in the timeframe quoted by your source. So the example is still not applicable as an action of the United States.

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
You are asking me to back up an assertion that a weapon of mass destruction needs to cause destruction on a massive scale - that it needs to be of the order of a nuclear strike.

You want references for this?

Yes I do. There are many conventional weapons such as the Storm Shadow cruise missle that can cause destruction on a massive scale, without the need for a Nuclear Warhead. So yes you have come up with the assertion that

To be classifiable as use of a weapon of mass destruction, you would need to be unleashing a killing/maiming effect on a scale comparable to a nuclear explosion

So how many spores of anthrax does it take for the weapon to be classified as a WMD? 1? 1,000,000? What does a massive scale mean? 1sq KM? 1000sq KM? Where did you get the clasification from?

You've got to be kidding. You want references to clarify that a WMD should do what its name implies?

No I am not kidding. I am simply asking how do you quantitify massive scale?

If it is not a question of scale, then exactly what is it?

Thats exactly what I am asking you. You have come up with the clasification. So explain it. Excatly what do you mean by "massive scale"?

As for this whole Agent Orange / Agent Green thing....

But Agent Green is not a human targetted attack. It is a defoliant. It kills plants. To date, no-one has offered a single link to show that it is anything other than a defoliant, or that it is harmful to humans.

Single Link

Because Fusarium oxysporum is highly toxic to animals and humans, its use could threaten endangered birds that feed on coca seeds, and native peoples who use coca as a traditional, and legal, stimulant."Fusaria can produce mycotoxins that are deadly enough to be considered weapons of war and are listed as biological agents in the draft Protocol to the Biological and Toxic Weapons Convention," says Sunshine Project biologist Jan Van Aken. Once released into the environment, the deadly fungus cannot be recalled.

So now, given that you've asked for me to provide references for my understanding that a WMD does what its name says, I would ask you to provide references showing that a defoliating effect counts as "mass destruction", or that Agent Green has some human-destrimental side effect that the US government were/are aware of.

See above

Éomer of Rohan

I'd say the definition could be 'kills 70,000 people' easily enough to be honest with you. I wouldn't consider the quantities of biological and chemical weapons as weapons of mass destruction as possessed by nations other than the US and the RF. Nuclear is different. They can kill thousands in seconds. Millions if you start on the super-hydrogen weapons and MIRV's of the superpowers. Smallpox or Ebola or something to that effect might be a devastatingly powerful WMD but Agent Orange isn't really - I would stick with the point that it was not used as a WMD and therefore isn't.

bonkey

Let me get this straight....

you want me to provide a reference to quantify WMD to show that your quoted examples dont qualify.....despite the fact that you have never provided any such qualification yourself to show why they are relevant?

The best you seem to have procided is " WMD in my book any day." and "a) They are weapons. b) They cause mass destruction", and you're asking me to find references?

Is the onus not on you (or anyone supporting the claim) to show that it is valid? Is it not "innocent until proven guilty", or has that somehow been reversed here?

jc

Victor

To a degree WMD is merely a labelling. There are other weapons out there that have greater dangers, especially outlawed ones designed to change weather and eco-systems.

It actually worries me that chemical (& biological) weapons will be largely gone in the next few years. It will leave a big gap between the MOAB / Bunk Buster / clusterbombs and the next step up ... nukes.

Not wishing to be boring or a nuisance here, but ...

Originally posted by davelerave
yeh as i rememeber it they won the war with us suppllies 'stinger' sams wasn't it

Actually the US was providing tens of thousand of tonnes of supplies via Pakistan, much of it actually Soviet by manufacture, bought in the Middle East (replaced by US products).

Originally posted by davelerave
the ones the ira were supposed to have but never 'bothered' using, or do they just have bits of them?

The allegation is that the IRA has / had Russian SAMs, not Stingers. In all likelihood they are time expired.

Originally posted by daveirl
The RIRA/CIRA used them on that attack on MI5 or MI6 can't remember which

That attack was with a simple rocket propelled grenade launcher.

Originally posted by davelerave
question 9 dude ,weren't there over 300 US marines killed by a truck bomb in beirut in the eighties

I think it was about 360. It was restricted to a military target in a war zone, albeit under a UN mandate.

Originally posted by The Corinthian
A shell with a depleted uranium case has nuclear entities. Does that make it a nuclear weapon by your same logic?

Depleted uranium kills via (a) kinetic energy (very dense material) (b) burning (c) poisoning (heavy metal). As it burns and is inhaled, it leads to some low level radiation penetrating the mouth, throat and lungs. There are medium to long-term concerns about it's radiological effects and should be considered a radiological weapon (a dirty bullet). By comparison lead, steel and tungsten rounds use blunt trauma and laceration to kill.

Hobart

Originally posted by bonkey
Let me get this straight....

you want me to provide a reference to quantify WMD to show that your quoted examples dont qualify.....

No that is incorrect. I would like you to back up your previously stated claim, quoted in my previous post, where you define WMD. All I am asking is that you qualify the statements you have made with relevant links as per the charter.

despite the fact that you have never provided any such qualification yourself to show why they are relevant?

I simply do not understand this statement. I have made my points clearly. If they are not relevant please state so and tell me where and why.

The best you seem to have procided is " WMD in my book any day."

That is my opinion in which I am well justified in presenting. I will re-iterate that I have backed up my other opinions with links, as asked for by you, in all cases. Where I have stated things incorrectly I have accepted that, apologised and clarified.

and "a) They are weapons. b) They cause mass destruction",

They are and they do. What is your point here??

and you're asking me to find references?

Yes I am. You may find it helpful to re-read the charter/guidelines where it is clearly stated

When offering an opinion, please state so. Please do not present an opinion as "fact" - it only leads to flamage. When offering fact, please offer relevant linkage, or at least source. Simply saying "a quick search on google...." is often, but not always, enough.

And I may add that you did not even bother to simply say "a quick search on google....". So again I will ask you where did you get your definition of a WMD? Approx 1/2 to 2/3 of this thread has been a discussion on this subjecft. You have offered a definition on what a WMD is! What linkage do you have to support this 'fact'?

Is the onus not on you (or anyone supporting the claim) to show that it is valid? Is it not "innocent until proven guilty", or has that somehow been reversed here?

I have tried to make my points clear here. You have dodged the issue IMO. Where I have been proved incorrect I have put my hand up and said "Sorry, Wrong here" and continued. You asked me for references and answers and I have provided them. I have asked you to clarify a couple of points and I get this reverse psychology and "why should I have to backup what I say? It will only prove your argument right!" basis. All I have asked is that you abide by the guidelines and provide some linkage to what you present as fact. If you cannot, well then,say so. It would be nice to have my points which I have addressed to you, answered in the same way, as I have addressed yours.

Finally I will ask you again. Where is the backup for your definition of WMD?

Sparks

Depleted uranium kills via (a) kinetic energy (very dense material) (b) burning (c) poisoning (heavy metal). As it burns and is inhaled, it leads to some low level radiation penetrating the mouth, throat and lungs. There are medium to long-term concerns about it's radiological effects and should be considered a radiological weapon (a dirty bullet). By comparison lead, steel and tungsten rounds use blunt trauma and laceration to kill.

Thing about DU is that it doesn't just kill what it hits, it kills rather nastily the people that get exposed to the aftermath of the round for a few thousand years unless it's cleaned up. A quick search will show as many nasty photos and statistics as you could want regarding the number of deformed fetuses from iraqis living in areas where DU weapons were used during the first gulf war, medical opinions that DU weapons are linked to the "gulf war syndrome", and the reports from UN evaluation of the aftermath of the use of these weapons. It is a kinetic weapon by classification, but the classification ignores secondary radiological characteristics which are in fact more serious over the long term than the primary kinetic effect.


I'm still wondering what definition is being used by the US for what a Weapon of Mass Destruction is. 2,000lb JDAM bombs have a minimum safe distance of about a kilometre to avoid maiming. Anyone within 3-400m is pretty much dead through incineration, massive trauma from the shock wave, or simple shredding from shapnel, according to the US air force. Now to me, that's rather massive compared to my scale. The MOAB has just under 20,000lb of explosives. Hell, the Marines have lots and lots of rifles - taken alltogether, that's a lot of destruction! So where is the line?

Victor

Actually knifes (in particular machetes), pistols, rifles were the big killers of the 1990s, how about a crackdown on them?

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
Thing about DU is that it doesn't just kill what it hits, it kills rather nastily the people that get exposed to the aftermath of the round for a few thousand years unless it's cleaned up. A quick search will show as many nasty photos and statistics as you could want regarding the number of deformed fetuses from iraqis living in areas where DU weapons were used during the first gulf war, medical opinions that DU weapons are linked to the "gulf war syndrome", and the reports from UN evaluation of the aftermath of the use of these weapons.

The only UN report I could find on DU was this report from the WHO which has the following to say:

A recent UNEP report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo found that contamination by DU in the environment was localised to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts to local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus the possibility of significant exposure to the local populations was found, at least where measurements were made, to be very low

There's also this report from the EU's Radiation Protection Commission:

On the basis of available information, it is concluded that exposure to DU could not produce any detectable health effects under realistic assumptions of the doses that would be received. Moreover, in view of the fact that committed doses from incorporated DU build up over a lifetime and in view of the minimum latency period of cancer induction, such effects could not occur during the first few years after incorporation as a result of radiological exposure. This conclusion applies in particular to leukaemia: while the latency period for leukaemia is shorter than for solid cancers, uranium accumulates very little in blood forming organs such as bone marrow.

And yet another report, this time from the European Parliament:

The expected external radiation doses in man by DU are small. If long-lasting direct contacts of one and the same part of the skin with DU are avoided, no health effects are to be feared. When DU is introduced into the human body, inhalation of DU aerosols and inoculation of fragments are the critical pathways. The ingestion pathway is uncritical. An acute health risk in exposed persons is practically only to be feared from the chemical toxicity of DU and only after intake of larger quantities in soluble form. Hereby, the biological effects expected would be a reversible impairment of the renal functions, possibly even failure of the kidneys. The internal radiation doses which are to be expected especially after inhalation of DU-aerosols are below the dose limits for occupationally exposed persons. The theoretically resulting increase in the incidence of cancer, mainly lung cancer, will not be statistically verifiable.

Sparks

Victor,
I'd rather see their use on humans outlawed and that law actively enforced

Meh,
http://www.cadu.org.uk/resources/index.htm
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/policy/cur_du.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/du.htm
http://www.iacenter.org/depleted/mettoc.htm
http://www.isisuk.demon.co.uk/0811/isis/uk/regpapers/no78choose.html

BTW, remember that some 11 tons of DU was used in Kosovo, as opposed to 340 tonnes in Iraq - so the end results will be more pronounced in Iraq. Still, that's not stopping a lot of nato soldiers demanding to be transferred from the Balkans due to the high number of lukemia cases turning up...

Éomer of Rohan

And what Meh doesn't seem to notice, or is unwilling to notice is that several nations in Europe deploy DU weapons - not least France Germany and the UK.

Hobart

Originally posted by Sparks
I'm still wondering what definition is being used by the US for what a Weapon of Mass Destruction is. 2,000lb JDAM bombs have a minimum safe distance of about a kilometre to avoid maiming. Anyone within 3-400m is pretty much dead through incineration, massive trauma from the shock wave, or simple shredding from shapnel, according to the US air force. Now to me, that's rather massive compared to my scale. The MOAB has just under 20,000lb of explosives. Hell, the Marines have lots and lots of rifles - taken alltogether, that's a lot of destruction! So where is the line?

So am I(waiting for clarification). But I don't think it will be the US that comes up with it(it has to be the UN or some other collective body). Bonkey seems to have some ideas on it (see above). Apparantely the definition of a WMD is a weapon that is capable of :

unleashing a killing/maiming effect on a scale comparable to a nuclear explosion

Having said that I am awaiting references on this.

bonkey

Hobart...

You want to bring up the rules...then fine.....lets not discuss a single additional point, until either spandauballet admits that these are not facts and just unsupported information he chooses to believe, or until someone provides linkage to back up the original claims in the first place.

But no....thats not a problem. Its okay for spandau to have presented this stuff without linkage, but as soon as someone wants to disagree with the same unsupported claims in the same manner, you want to trot the charter as a reason why they're wrong to do so?

So, I'll take your stance.

The originally posted article is nothing but unsupported personal opinion, presented as fact.

Spandau has repeatedly defended this article as being true and factual...but offered no relevant linkage. It has been shown that biological agents have been used, but no-one has presented any evidence that such usage constitutes the classification "Weapon of Mass Destruction".

The original article, therefore, is in violation of the charter of this board, and not worth discussing further until either re-presented as unsupported opinion, or with sufficient linkage to establish the credibility of each and every point.



If and when someone establishes linkage that these claims have validity, I will more than willing to come back and discuss them then.

In the meantime, I'll just discard them as charter-violating opinion-masquerading-as-fact rubbish, shall I?

Good idea.

jc