Sarin? What Sarin?

Hey McGentrix! I saw no one had answered this so let me be of service. WMD means "Weapons of Mass Destruction". One container of easy-to-make sarin gas is not considered by any definition a WMD. It didn't come from a huge stockpile of Sarin Gas. The only possible reason the Iraqi's may have had any kind of bilogical weapon is because we sold it to them in the 70's.

0 Replies

Right. A one of a kind weapon.

0 Replies

"easy-to-make sarin gas"

Heh. It's what a WMD can do that makes it bad, not that you have a lot of it...

0 Replies

McG,

I understand why a nuclear weapon is considered a WMD.

Can you explain to me why Sarin should be put in the same category? The destruction caused by sarin seems mightly puny compared to even that caused by the Nitrogen based ferilizer bomb used by McVeigh.

Sarin belongs in the same category as an explosive. It is not anywhere near the category as a nuclear bomb.

The term WMD is over-hyped propaganda. One bomb that "sickens" a few GI's hardly justifies Bush's war.

0 Replies

MCG is getting anxious to find WMDs to provide a moral imperative to the invasion of iraq. In todays news the plan for moving over 20000Tons of Sarin (VX) from Newport Indiana to Deepwater delaware has been given a "hold -on-a-mo" by the DOD. Its probably bad form to move the equivalent of 2 million of those 105 howitzer shells in the uS and then claim its a wMD when we find ONE in Iraq.
Logic eludes them

0 Replies

Do as I say, not as I do. The U.S., Russia, China, India and other questionable governments stockpile enough WMD to blow up the solar system.
Any government no matter what they appear to be has to constantly be scrutinized when they possess that kind of power. So we're all glad that the U.S. may have the largest stockpile of WMD (and Gawd knows how many chemical and biological substances we still harbor with a delivery system to actually make them WMD)? That's human nature to agree that we can be glad but there's a peculiar smell that's emanating from the big stick we are carrying. We still have the burden of setting an example and we're not showing the rest of the world our best side.

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

Sarin belongs in the same category as an explosive. It is not anywhere near the category as a nuclear bomb.

Sarin, or any other chem/bio weapon is an area denial weapon. That is it makes the area toxic for whom ever tries to occupy it. That is not the same purpose as a nuclear device but it's effect is long lasting and indiscriminate so I would classify it as a WMD.

What I find more interesting is that the identification of this shell as containing sarin was tentative and there has been no further conformation. This story has completely disappeared and given the desperate need of the Bush administration to justify it's invasion I would expect much to be made of it if the presence of sarin was confirmed.

0 Replies

They were reticent to classify it as a WMD. If they are slaves to public opinion and/or the media, this would be a good example.

0 Replies

You forgot the sixth "No".

Despite all the effort to come up with something to the contrary, there is still no justifiable reason for us initiating this expensive and uneeded war.

0 Replies

Good points, Acquiunk - as usual.

0 Replies

Sarin gas is relatively easy to make as I found the list of ingredients on the internet. Though one canister could prove deadly, it is not the stockpile Bush claimed Iraq possesed in order to justify this war and the killing of 20,000+ Iraqis. Not to mention our own soldiers. Try again McG.

0 Replies

20,000 plus now? Geez! How many have the terrorists killed over there with the car bombs and what not? Does anyone have any figures on that?

Nick, I found instructions on how to make a nuclear device... so what? I can make botulism in a can of chili, so what? Both are still considered weapons of mass destruction. Sarin gas, when properly mixed, has the potential to kill thousands. Remember the Japan subway incident? They had not mixed thier chemicals correctly or else A LOT more people would have died.

I still haven't figured out why you defend terrorists... I suppose you're fine with the Chinese still occupying Tibet, right?

0 Replies

Hey McG! The US created anarchy. The government Iraq currently has is not even recognized. I don't defend terrorists. I also don't defend the US becoming terrorists in the name of fighting terrorism. One canister is not enough to be defined as a WMD. I haven't heard anyone calling it that either, exept you.

0 Replies

I have previously defined what a WMD is, to keep repeating this seems redundant but here goes:

Definition: (DOD) In arms control usage, weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Can be nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, but excludes the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon. Also called WMD. See also destruction.

Quantity does not define a WMD. The purpose defines a WMD.

0 Replies

All this is fine McG, but they have yet to find any of those WMD's in Iraq, which was the rational for our invasion. In fact Secretary Powell is now backing away from the claim that they existed as fast as possible.

0 Replies

Quote:

Quantity does not define a WMD. The purpose defines a WMD.

You're really reaching now.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Quantity does not define a WMD. The purpose defines a WMD.

You're really reaching now.

Cycloptichorn

How do you figure?

100,000 pounds of TNT is not a WMD. A pint of Sarin is.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quantity does not define a WMD. The purpose defines a WMD.

I agree, but only when it comes to nuclear weapons.

Traces of Sarin in an old shell does not a WMD make.

0 Replies

Quote:

How do you figure?

100,000 pounds of TNT is not a WMD. A pint of Sarin is.

That's funny. According to your own defintion, TNT IS a WMD.

Quote:

Definition: (DOD) In arms control usage, weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people.

Seems to me that 100k pounds of TNT would have a high order or destruction and would destroy large numbers of people if set off.

Quote:

Can be nuclear, chemical, biological, and radiological weapons, but excludes the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon.

TNT is a chemical weapon. A chemical reaction causes it to explode.

Ask yourself, how weak is your argument when you are reduced to playing the definition game in order to support it, McG?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Sarin? What Sarin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know