Sarin? What Sarin?

Cyclopithorn, you don't usually demonstrate this level of ignorance, what's up?

Read the law:

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 40 > Sec. 2302.
Sec. 2302. - Definitions

In this chapter:
(1)

The term ''weapon of mass destruction'' means any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of -

(A)

toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors;

(B)

a disease organism; or

(C)

radiation or radioactivity.

Now, read your last statement of idiocy and try to explain what you are talking about.

0 Replies

Oh, I know the law.

The problem is it's an argument of definitions. The 100k lbs. of TNT you mentioned has just as much killing ability as other forms that are defined as WMD, but since it's a 'classical' form of killing device we don't put it in the same category.

But despite what you categorize it as, the potential remains for that device to kill the sh*t out of as many people as the 'wmd' would, and certainly more than one stupid container filled with gas.

You have to realize that the term WMD has been used over and over again to drum up fear in people, regardless of the fact that it in many cases does not represent a much greater threat than other forms of 'non-wmd' weapons.

You are arguing strict adherence to definitions in order to support your case, when in fact the reality of the situation does not.

So I don't think that statement was that idiotic after all.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A WMD is a very specific thing. That's the point.

It doesn't matter how easy it is to make, it doesn't matter what quantity it is found in, it does matter that the intention of that device follows the definitions outlined above.

TNT is a weapon. It can, as you say "kill the sh*t out of as many people as the 'wmd' would", but that does not classify it as a WMD.

That's like saying a pear is an apple.

0 Replies

Quote:

That's like saying a pear is an apple.

heh. They both are fruit, though, and accomplish the same purpose in the end. Therefore, they could easily be categorized together even though they are different items.

If you think that one canister of sarin gas (which by the way didn't manage to hurt anyone) counts as a WMD, you are twisting the definition in order to support your argument. Which is not a strong argumentative structure.

If there really WERE any WMD found, you wouldnt' have to argue defintions... that's the point.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A WMD is not a WMD if it is not a functional weapon and the key word here is chemical. TNT is a chemical.

0 Replies

TNT is an explosive, it is not a chemical weapon. Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Well, technically it is a Chemical explosive, so you both are right.

It's an arbitrary distinction, though, only used to heighten people's fears...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

When you have to rely on nitpicking to this degree to try to make the thing fit the definition, its safe to say the argument isn't quite working.

McG, quantity isn't very important, but when you look at what was found, I think we can all agree that it doesn't fit the description of what we're after.

And old shell with traces of Sarin is not what we started this war for. We're looking for stockpiles, or maybe something more recent that demonstrates there was an active program taking place, or can lead us to something similar. So far we've found bupkiss. And that don't sit well with alot of people right now.

You know we'll have found the real deal with an inspector opens up a warehouse or some storage facility, turns on the light, and the first words out of his mouth are, "Holy Sh*t!"

0 Replies

TNT is a mixture of explosive chemicals -- just like sarin is a mixture of chemicals that produce a gas. I suppose the sarin gas bomb doesn't explode. There has been many discussions within the government in the past to classify the super conventional bombs as WMD. The point is the largest cluster bombs have the capability of killing just as many people, soldiers or citizens, that a small tactical nuclear weapon can kill. The definition of WMD is still semantically elusive making it difficult to state that a dud like the sarin gas bomb is hardly a WMD. We could argue this all day and obviously those who don't want to be convinced will not be convinced. I guess Secretary Powell is lying when he says he is sorry that they haven't found any WMD.

0 Replies

Quote:

The definition of WMD is still semantically elusive making it difficult to state that a dud like the sarin gas bomb is hardly a WMD.

Was the shell determined to be a dud or was it just not used properly.

I think I remember a military official saying if used properly one shell could kill at least 4000 people by way of the deadly mixture.

0 Replies

I have a load of fertilizer out back that could easily be converted to an explosive device. In my shed you can discover several large bags of 20-10-5 - a high nitrogen compound that could easily be converted to a bomb - or it can fertiize grass. You make the call.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

Quote:
The definition of WMD is still semantically elusive making it difficult to state that a dud like the sarin gas bomb is hardly a WMD.

Was the shell determined to be a dud or was it just not used properly.

I think I remember a military official saying if used properly one shell could kill at least 4000 people by way of the deadly mixture.

That is pure hype.

Sarin has been used several time. It has shown itself to be less deadly than conventional (legal) weapons.

Under ideal conditions in Japan-- an enclosed crowded space, it killed 12 people. This is much less deadly than an average bomb. Against the Kurds, they used several low flying planes that made several passes using chemical weapons. The act was brutal and horrible, but the weapon was no more deadly (and probably less effective) than bombs and strafing would have been.

There are no examples where chemical weapons have been effective-- especially Sarin.

In contrast, a nuclear weapons are horrifying. The bombs we dropped in Japan caused real mass distruction. With a nuclear weapon attack there would be 10's of thousands of people dead amid massive destruction. We have reason to fear these weapons, and, if credible evidence had shown that Saddam was close to having a nuclear weapon, I probably would have supported the war.

Sarin is nowhere near the threat of a nuclear weapon. It causes no more "destruction" than conventional explosives.

The use of the term "WMD" for one Sarin shell is just a propaganda tool to stir up the hysteria needed to manipulate the American public.

0 Replies

Quote:

Sarin has been used several time. It has shown itself to be less deadly than conventional (legal) weapons.

Under ideal conditions in Japan-- an enclosed crowded space, it killed 12 people. This is much less deadly than an average bomb.

The Japan incident is a poor example of how deadly sarin can be. If dispersed properly with a common spraying device, 280 grams can kill up 10,000 people in an environment such as a train or through a ventilation system in a building.

The train incident involved approx. 5000 grams but not atomized into the air via spray.

0 Replies

If dispersed properly, I can make enough botulism with a single can of green beans to kill a thousand people.

Your point is... what? That can of green beans gone bad would constitute 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. 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.

According to McG's definition, a WMD is considered to be seperate from the delivery vehicle. Therefore, unless the method of delivery is inherent to the danger (viral, nuclear, chemical explosive) you can't use the term 'properly applied' and still keep the definition of sarin as a WMD.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Gross! I hate green beans, so even a can of 'good' ones is a WMD to me!

I'm not arguing what is a WMD and what is not.

I just disagree that sarin is 'less deadly than an average bomb'.

0 Replies

If the device hadn't been a dud -- I don't think we've ever been told if there was any possibility of arming the device properly. I believe it wasn't possible as it was out-of-date.

0 Replies

Brand X wrote:

I'm not arguing what is a WMD and what is not.

I just disagree that sarin is 'less deadly than an average bomb'.

The facts despute this. So-called WMD's don't have a very good track record.

Aum Shinrikio proved that Sarin can be made by a non-military private organization. Terrorist organizations that are much better organized and more sophisticated and probably have government support continue to use conventional explosives. If Sarin were as effective a terror device as the hype suggests, we would have seen a lot more attacks by now.

Likewise, some terrorist individual or group had "militarized Anthrax". We all know the "massive destruction" that caused.

I am just saying that nuclear devices excepted, the threat of so-called WMD's is more political hype than military or scientific threat.

The facts back me up on this.

0 Replies

WMD has become like Hitchcock's "the McGuffin."

0 Replies

Sarin? What Sarin?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know