"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