http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=7573
The author, Lewis Page, is a former Royal Navy officer who wrote a great book about how screwed up and corrupt defense procurement (i.e. buying weapons) is in the UK.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
WMDs Don’t Exist[/quote]
“On the road to Anab, many of the women and children began to die. The chemical clouds were on the ground. They were heavy. We could see them.” People were dying all around, he said. When a child could not go on, the parents, becoming hysterical with fear, abandoned him. “Many children were left on the ground, by the side of the road. Old people as well. They were running, then they would stop breathing and die.”
Halabja would tend to disagree.
Source:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm
[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
WMDs Don’t Exist
[i]“On the road to Anab, many of the women and children began to die. The chemical clouds were on the ground. They were heavy. We could see them.” People were dying all around, he said. When a child could not go on, the parents, becoming hysterical with fear, abandoned him.
“Many children were left on the ground, by the side of the road. Old people as well. They were running, then they would stop breathing and die.”
[/i]
Halabja would tend to disagree.
Source:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm[/quote]
I’m gonna guess you didn’t read the link. He isn’t saying chemical or biological weapons can’t kill people, he’s saying they are a paper tiger, and hardly “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Read your own story. The Iraqis used conventional artillery first to force the Kurds below ground. But way to fight logic with emotion.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Cunnivore wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
WMDs Don’t Exist
[i]“On the road to Anab, many of the women and children began to die. The chemical clouds were on the ground. They were heavy. We could see them.” People were dying all around, he said. When a child could not go on, the parents, becoming hysterical with fear, abandoned him.
“Many children were left on the ground, by the side of the road. Old people as well. They were running, then they would stop breathing and die.”
[/i]
Halabja would tend to disagree.
Source:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm
I’m gonna guess you didn’t read the link. He isn’t saying chemical or biological weapons can’t kill people, he’s saying they are a paper tiger, and hardly “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Read your own story. The Iraqis used conventional artillery first to force the Kurds below ground. …[/quote]
where they were killed with chemical weapons.
Tell Hiroshima and Nagasaki WMD’s don’t exist.
I think you should be more precise with your titles.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Cunnivore wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
WMDs Don’t Exist
[i]“On the road to Anab, many of the women and children began to die. The chemical clouds were on the ground. They were heavy. We could see them.” People were dying all around, he said. When a child could not go on, the parents, becoming hysterical with fear, abandoned him.
“Many children were left on the ground, by the side of the road. Old people as well. They were running, then they would stop breathing and die.”
[/i]
Halabja would tend to disagree.
Source:
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/warning.htm
I’m gonna guess you didn’t read the link. He isn’t saying chemical or biological weapons can’t kill people, he’s saying they are a paper tiger, and hardly “Weapons of Mass Destruction.”
Read your own story. The Iraqis used conventional artillery first to force the Kurds below ground. …
where they were killed with chemical weapons.
Tell Hiroshima and Nagasaki WMD’s don’t exist.
I think you should be more precise with your titles. [/quote]
OK, try reading the linked article first. It’s the point of the fucking thread. He specifically says nuclear weapons are even more terrifying than we think, but that everything else is completely overhyped. There are nuclear weapons and there’s everything else. Thus “weapons of mass destruction” is a bullshit, made up term. Read the link before commenting, it’s not that tough.
I couldn’t agree more with that article. There’s a reason chemical weapons aren’t used in warfare anymore- they suck. WWI demonstrated that they were good for two things: frightening the enemy and encumbering them with masks. Killing the enemy was best left to the far more effective machine gun and high explosives because countermeasures were far more difficult against them. This continues to be the case today.
One of my least favorite flaws in human nature is the inability to rationally process relative risks. This is a prime example of such.
That’s not true, they do exist…just not in Iraq that is…
My job is to emergency response planning and security for a military base is Washington D.C. Chemical Weapons are not very high up on our list of terrible things that make for a bad day. If people follow the guidelines set for sheltering in place, found on numerous government websites, they will get through a chemical attack fine.
Water washes most of that stuff away and some CWs are broken down by sunlight. CWs have to be employed in an enclosed space to be effective. Cops and firefighters in chemcial suits scares the hell out of the public though. Someone conducting an attack gets more from that fear than the effects of the weapon.
The Shin Ayum cult attack in Tokyo could have been much more effective if the dispersal system for the chemicals had been better. Thank god the cult didn’t know what they were doing.
They did injure around 200 people (I can look up the exact figure) some of them with permanent damage to thier nervous systems and lungs.
I am more concerned about the train tanks full of chlorine and various other Methyl Ethyl Deatholine chemicals that pass nearby to my base, they are in such huge quantities that it will take a long time for the gas cloud to disperse. A truck full of anhydrous ammonia can be turned into a very effective chemical weapon if employed in an enclosed environment.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
That’s not true, they do exist…just not in Iraq that is…[/quote]
Tools who proclaim “There are no WMD in Iraq”
Exhibit A: jlesk68.
Thanks for proving my point. I now have a macro button on my computer. When I see people like jlesk68 making these sort of commentary, I hit the macro button. It details the WMD finds in Iraq that saddam didn’t declare and hid among convential arms.
Oh, jlesk68, I hope you don’t mind if I use you as an example of people that don’t read or keep up with current events.
Thanks in advance,
JeffR
[quote]BH6 wrote:
[/quote]
BH6,
Thanks for your post. I need to make sure some things you posted are discussed. For instance, in the sarin attacks on the Tokyo railway, the sarin killed twelve people and more than 5000 people went to the hospital.
Had the nutjob not quickly made a low lethality sarin, that attack would have been more tragic. Further, the dissemination technique (puncturing and letting it sit) allowed the authorites to take effective countermeasures.
With chemical specialists and regimes behind it (like saddam) these attacks would be catastrophic.
I hope you aren’t attempting to minimize the danger that sarin poses. It is the most deadly of the nerve gases.
JeffR
[quote]BH6 wrote:
My job is to emergency response planning and security for a military base is Washington D.C. Chemical Weapons are not very high up on our list of terrible things that make for a bad day. If people follow the guidelines set for sheltering in place, found on numerous government websites, they will get through a chemical attack fine.
Water washes most of that stuff away and some CWs are broken down by sunlight. CWs have to be employed in an enclosed space to be effective. Cops and firefighters in chemcial suits scares the hell out of the public though. Someone conducting an attack gets more from that fear than the effects of the weapon.
The Shin Ayum cult attack in Tokyo could have been much more effective if the dispersal system for the chemicals had been better. Thank god the cult didn’t know what they were doing.
They did injure around 200 people (I can look up the exact figure) some of them with permanent damage to thier nervous systems and lungs.
I am more concerned about the train tanks full of chlorine and various other Methyl Ethyl Deatholine chemicals that pass nearby to my base, they are in such huge quantities that it will take a long time for the gas cloud to disperse. A truck full of anhydrous ammonia can be turned into a very effective chemical weapon if employed in an enclosed environment.
[/quote]
So the truth is, if anybody wanted to attack the US with chemical weapons it would be best to use industrial chemicals
that are easily to get in the US?
You are right about Tokyo, I didn’t bother looking up the figures before I posted. There was no attempt to minimize Tokyo, people in my buisness study that attack as an example.
If a proper dispersal method had been used, it would have been a devasting attack.
The Japanese did not assume it was a chemical attack, so the first responders to that incident were exposed to the Sarin. Now chemical detection equipment are a standard part of a Fire/EMS response, and first responders are likely to go into a mass casualty incident with thier full protective gear and air equipment.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
jlesk68 wrote:
That’s not true, they do exist…just not in Iraq that is…
Tools who proclaim “There are no WMD in Iraq”
Exhibit A: jlesk68.
Thanks for proving my point. I now have a macro button on my computer. When I see people like jlesk68 making these sort of commentary, I hit the macro button. It details the WMD finds in Iraq that saddam didn’t declare and hid among convential arms.
Oh, jlesk68, I hope you don’t mind if I use you as an example of people that don’t read or keep up with current events.
Thanks in advance,
JeffR
[/quote]
Are you reffering to real current events or the ones that Neocon TV brainwashed you with…
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-10-06-wmd_x.htm
Final report: Iraq had no WMDs
From staff and wire reports
WASHINGTON ? When the United States invaded Iraq last year to disarm Saddam Hussein’s regime, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq or any facilities to build them, according to a definitive report released Wednesday.
U.S. arms inspector Charles Duelfer presented his findings Wednesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
By Tim Dillon, USA TODAY
The 1,000-page report by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer, a document that President Bush said would represent the last word on the issue, confirms earlier findings and undermines much of the Bush administration’s case about the Iraq weapons threat, though it does say Saddam intended to restart his weapons programs once United Nations sanctions were lifted.
Using the research of the 1,700-member Iraq Survey Group, Duelfer concluded that Saddam ordered his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons destroyed in 1991 and 1992 and halted nuclear weapons development, all in hopes of lifting crippling economic sanctions.
“Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf War,” the report states.
The findings were similarly definitive concerning chemical and biological weapons: “Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991” and the survey team found “no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production.”
The report, released four weeks before the presidential election, immediately became political fodder.
Bush’s spokesman said the report justified the decision to go to war. Campaigning in Pennsylvania, Bush defended the decision to invade.
“There was a risk, a real risk, that Saddam Hussein would pass weapons or materials or information to terrorist networks,” the president said in a speech in Wilkes Barre, Pa. “In the world after Sept. 11, that was a risk we could not afford to take.”
A spokesman for opponent John Kerry said the report “underscores the incompetence of George Bush’s Iraq policy.”
“George Bush refuses to come clean about the ways he misled our country into war,” Kerry spokesman David Wade added.
“In short, we invaded a country, thousands of people have died, and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger,” said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
The report resolves disputes about allegations made prior to the U.S. invasion:
? Aluminum tubes that the Bush administration alleged were for nuclear weapons production were, in fact, for making conventional artillery rockets.
? Iraq did not try to buy uranium overseas.
? The team found no evidence that Iraq was developing biological weapons trailers or rail cars. Two trailers found after the war were for producing hydrogen gas for weather balloons.
“The former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions,” a report summary says. “Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policymakers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.”
The report’s conclusions about Iraq’s weapons plans came from interviews with jailed Iraqi officials, including Saddam, who is in U.S. military custody while awaiting an Iraqi war crimes trial. Duelfer quoted Saddam as telling an FBI interrogator “that nuclear weapons were the right of any country that could build them.”
The report, which drew on CIA and FBI interrogation reports on Saddam, says he was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. And even as the United States fixated on him, he was fixated on his neighboring enemy, Iran.
That is the picture that emerges from interrogations of the former Iraqi leader since his capture last December, according to the report, which gives a first glimpse into what the United States has gleaned about Saddam’s hopes, dreams and insecurities.
The report suggests that Saddam tried to improve relations with the United States in the 1990s, yet basked in his standing as the only leader to stand up to the world’s superpower.
Contributing: John Diamond, Judy Keen and The Associated Press
SLAM!!!
It would be as easy as it is in Austria.
There is an ammonia plant in Linz.
Jack a truck or catch one of the railroad cars coming out of the plant. Crash the truck in a city or derail the railroad cars in the vicinity of the city. Lots of dead and injured austrians.
[quote]jlesk68 wrote:
SLAM!!![/quote]
jlesk, thanks for making my point. You did it beautifully. You linked an October, 2004 article.
Wonderful!!!
It shows that your brain hit stop on that date. Your cortex didn’t allow any further updates to sink in.
Don’t feel bad, you aren’t alone.
Here’s a slightly more up to date assessment.
Enjoy.
www.mediaresearch.org/press/2006/press20060623.asp
Oh, thanks again for making my point and allowing me to use you as an example of cerebral arrest.
JeffR
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Read your own story. The Iraqis used conventional artillery first to force the Kurds below ground. …
where they were killed with chemical weapons.
Tell Hiroshima and Nagasaki WMD’s don’t exist.
I think you should be more precise with your titles.
OK, try reading the linked article first. It’s the point of the fucking thread. He specifically says nuclear weapons are even more terrifying than we think, but that everything else is completely overhyped. There are nuclear weapons and there’s everything else. Thus “weapons of mass destruction” is a bullshit, made up term. Read the link before commenting, it’s not that tough.[/quote]
Did you read what I posted? Perhaps you should be more precise with the title of your thread.
WMD’s do exist.
Saddam killed many people with them.
The fact that he also used conventinal weapons does not change this fact.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
It would be as easy as it is in Austria.
There is an ammonia plant in Linz.
Jack a truck or catch one of the railroad cars coming out of the plant. Crash the truck in a city or derail the railroad cars in the vicinity of the city. Lots of dead and injured austrians.[/quote]
Hey, we also have an experimental nuclear reactor in Seibersdorf you could take over with about 10 to 20 well armed men…
The point was that it would not make sense to start a war to secure chemical WMD`s if your enemy can lay his hands on equally devastating industrial chemicals right near his targets.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
…
Read your own story. The Iraqis used conventional artillery first to force the Kurds below ground. …
where they were killed with chemical weapons.
Tell Hiroshima and Nagasaki WMD’s don’t exist.
I think you should be more precise with your titles.
OK, try reading the linked article first. It’s the point of the fucking thread. He specifically says nuclear weapons are even more terrifying than we think, but that everything else is completely overhyped. There are nuclear weapons and there’s everything else. Thus “weapons of mass destruction” is a bullshit, made up term. Read the link before commenting, it’s not that tough.
Did you read what I posted? Perhaps you should be more precise with the title of your thread.
WMD’s do exist.
Saddam killed many people with them.
The fact that he also used conventinal weapons does not change this fact.[/quote]
No, the point is that there aren’t “Weapons of Mass Destruction,” there are nuclear weapons and there is everything else, which Page persuasively claims are less destructive than conventional explosives. Therefore, WMD is a bullshit word, like “Islamofascism,” which obscures the truth and feeds on public fears.
[quote]BH6 wrote:
My job is to emergency response planning and security for a military base is Washington D.C. Chemical Weapons are not very high up on our list of terrible things that make for a bad day. If people follow the guidelines set for sheltering in place, found on numerous government websites, they will get through a chemical attack fine.
Water washes most of that stuff away and some CWs are broken down by sunlight. CWs have to be employed in an enclosed space to be effective. Cops and firefighters in chemcial suits scares the hell out of the public though. Someone conducting an attack gets more from that fear than the effects of the weapon.
The Shin Ayum cult attack in Tokyo could have been much more effective if the dispersal system for the chemicals had been better. Thank god the cult didn’t know what they were doing.
They did injure around 200 people (I can look up the exact figure) some of them with permanent damage to thier nervous systems and lungs.
I am more concerned about the train tanks full of chlorine and various other Methyl Ethyl Deatholine chemicals that pass nearby to my base, they are in such huge quantities that it will take a long time for the gas cloud to disperse. A truck full of anhydrous ammonia can be turned into a very effective chemical weapon if employed in an enclosed environment.
[/quote]
Thanks for your post, great to get the perspective of someone who works on these issues daily. But you seem to be of two minds about chemical weapons. I’m curious if you agree with Page that the threat is grossly overstated, and that chemical weapons are no more dnagerous than high explosive, which I took to be your point from your first two paragraphs.