Abject surrender

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.

Define "defensive weapon".

That's not my problem. The people who contend that they *are*
"defensive" have to manage that one.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

In article ,
"Simon Robbins" wrote:

"Steve Hix" wrote in message
...
- Targetted area is again difficult to constrain. If the wind shifts,
you can be looking at having to deal with your weapon turned back on
you, or you end up taking out your own people who might be in close
proximity to the intended target (close as in miles, rather than meters).

All good points, but we're not limiting our definitions of WMDs to materials
that have long half-lives or permanent effects. Mustard gas, blister agents,
etc. are all banned same as other NBC weapons, but while nasty don't have
the long-lasting effects that some other materials do.

Tell that to French and Belgian farmers. Within the last few years there
have been reports of plowing and rock clearing in fields resulting in
blister agents being unearthed, with attendant casualties.

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
In message , Chad Irby
writes

There's no such thing as a "defensive" chemical or biological weapon.

Define "defensive weapon".

That's not my problem.

How about "one used only to repel invasion"?

The people who contend that they *are*
"defensive" have to manage that one.

I can see plenty of scope for "defensive" CW, even for "defensive" BW
(though that's stretching it a lot). Never heard of the "chemical
minefield"?

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

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

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

The people who contend that they *are*
"defensive" have to manage that one.

I can see plenty of scope for "defensive" CW, even for "defensive" BW
(though that's stretching it a lot). Never heard of the "chemical
minefield"?

When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
"defensive" any more...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
"defensive" any more...

When I raised the question, it was in the context of Saddam's alleged
battlefield weapons, since we're now led to believe our wise and glorious
leaders knew that any "45 minute" claim regarded such battlefield weapons.
(But yes, you could always drive an artillery unit to the border and fire a
3km mortar over the edge.) Besides, we've always described our nuclear
arsenals as "deterents", and as such defensive by means of neutralising the
threat of attack.

Si

"Simon Robbins" wrote in message
...
"Chad Irby" wrote in message
om...
When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
"defensive" any more...

When I raised the question, it was in the context of Saddam's alleged
battlefield weapons, since we're now led to believe our wise and glorious
leaders knew that any "45 minute" claim regarded such battlefield weapons.
(But yes, you could always drive an artillery unit to the border and fire
a
3km mortar over the edge.) Besides, we've always described our nuclear
arsenals as "deterents", and as such defensive by means of neutralising
the
threat of attack.

What is much more worrisome is the use of that chemical mortar round in
another environment entirely. Against well-trained and prepared combat
troops, chems are not much of a deterrent--witness the willingness of the
coalition forces to go into Iraqi territory during ODS, not to mention
during the latest event (where our forces did indeed believe they were
facing a chemical capable opponent). But that mortar round (or three or
four)), given to the likes of an Abbu Abbas, or an Abu Nidal, or some Anser
Al Salaam nutcase, and detonated in a major metropolitan area (no mortar
tube required) could kill quite a few folks, and cause widespread panic,
etc.

Brooks


Si

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
I can see plenty of scope for "defensive" CW, even for "defensive" BW
(though that's stretching it a lot). Never heard of the "chemical
minefield"?

When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
"defensive" any more...

Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq. (Not that Iraq would have
minded such a capability, but they never managed to develop it)

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

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

In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call them
"defensive" any more...

Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq.

Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel has
chemical weapons.

And, by the way, Iraq demonstrated quite directly in Gulf War I that
they had missiles with enough range (and, despite those sanctions that
the UN didn't quite enforce, were building missiles with overly-long
ranges).

(Not that Iraq would have
minded such a capability, but they never managed to develop it)

Except that they did, and demonstrated such in the early 1990s.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes

When you're putting chemical and biological weapons in missiles with
ranges longer than your country is wide, it's *really* hard to call
them
"defensive" any more...

Sure, but that's Israel and Syria, not Iraq.

Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel has
chemical weapons.

You are joking, right? They are a signatory of the Chemical Warfare
Convention, but they have never ratified it; they have refused to even sign
the 1972 Bio Weapons Convention. Senior US military personnel testified
before Congress as early as 1974, claiming that the Israelis possessed an
offensive chemical capability. They have been very tight lipped about their
CBW programs, but they have also been tight lipped about their nuclear
capability as well. See:

www.bsos.umd.edu/pgsd/people/ staffpubs/Avner-CBWart.pdf

Brooks

snip

In article ,
"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...

Funny - I don't ever remember even hearing of a *rumor* that Israel has
chemical weapons.

You are joking, right? They are a signatory of the Chemical Warfare
Convention, but they have never ratified it; they have refused to even sign
the 1972 Bio Weapons Convention. Senior US military personnel testified
before Congress as early as 1974, claiming that the Israelis possessed an
offensive chemical capability. They have been very tight lipped about their
CBW programs, but they have also been tight lipped about their nuclear
capability as well. See:

www.bsos.umd.edu/pgsd/people/ staffpubs/Avner-CBWart.pdf

Okay, there's the rumor, but this is a pretty important quote *from*
that paper:

"For this reason, Israel¹s motivations in the CBW fields, defensive or
offensive, cannot be inferred merely from the existence of research
activities involving potential CBW agents. To do so would be an
unjustified leap. If additional relevant information is available
regarding weaponization or large-scale agent production, however, it
could alter the significance of the basic research."

Thy're surrounded by folks who have been spending huge amounts of money
on way to kill Israelis. They'd be stupid to not work on defensive tech.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.