In message . net,
Steven P. McNicoll writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...

One shell, apparently dated pre-1991 - this isn't a clear and present
danger. (The production facility for it would be - no signs so far)

Didn't the Iraqis claim they never had any Sarin at all?

No, they claimed that they'd had a fair amount pre-1991 and had since
destroyed almost all of it, apart from some odds and ends that had gone
adrift in the course of two wars, a short sharp shower of ****e and a
prolonged game of hide-the-programs.

The inspectors who audited their claims found some discrepancies, like
the alleged binary shell R&D program that *may* have produced this round
and thirty to forty like it, for further study: however, the further
study was pre-empted.

If that's the
case, doesn't the presence of even one shell prove they did not abide by the
1991 agreement?

The US and UK still turn up chemical and (occasionally in the US)
biological munitions here and there - does that prove we're in violation
of treaties? Or just that accounting down to individual rounds is a
tricky process?

Significant quantities of sarin are measured in the hundreds of kilos,
at least, for military effects. I'd be looking for a significant and
recent stockpile, or better yet a recent production program.

One shell, over a decade old, whose users seem to have had little idea
what it was, isn't particularly persuasive that there was a significant
threat.

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk