"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

FYI, a ballistic missile is not a WMD all by its lonesome.

How do you know that there was no weapons payload?

Even if there was no payload, what are the Yemenese using them for?
Garden planters? A year later are they still just delivery vehicles,
or do you think they are fully armed WMD's?

OK, let me say this very slowly so you might get a clue:
it...takes...a....chemical...nuclear...or...biolog ical...warhead...to...make
.....it...a...WMD. Conventional warheads carried by a Scud-wanna-be don't
meet the criteria.


Is the region better off with Yemen having them? Is Israel better
off?

I really don't know as to how it either negatively or positively affects the
region (being as the Syrians, Saudis, Israelis, and Iranians all already
have SRBM's of their own, I doubt it will have much of an effect either
way). They are certainly no threat to Israel whilst sitting in Yemen (look
at a map and calculate the range of those missiles in question). And they
are pretty lousy terroist weapons--kind of hard to smuggle one into range of
a target, then fuel it with those rather nasty fuels it requires...and even
if you could, with a conventional warhead you'd like as not do no damage
whatsovere to your intended target, since you'd most likely miss it by a
wide margin. FYI, Yemen has not been forbidden to possess SRBM's--unlike
Iraq was under 1441.

Why you brought up and are arguing this issue, especially given your obvious
complete unfamiliarity with the weapons you are discussing, is rather
baffling.

Brooks