Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
In a detailed response with some non-sequiturs and remarkable
generalizations on Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:21:13 +0200, "Emmanuel Gustin"
wrote:
....

The potential for destruction of WMD is routinely overrated,
especially for biological and chemical weapons, by people
who ignore the problem of distributing such agents over the
intended victims. Wolfowitz probably did so intentionally, others
may have done so out of simple ignorance. The same applies
for 'dirty bombs'. Nevertheless, I agree that there is a very serious
threat.

I spent a lot of years of my life in the business of planned delivery
of WMD and prepped for the defense against them. The "overrating" is
quite realistic. You don't want to experience them.


I'm curious as to the extent of your planning for the delivery of
chemical and biological weapons.

I'll agree that nuclear weapons are not overrated, but disagree
as to chemical and biological. Simply including those with
nuclear weapons in the blanket term 'WMD' overrates them a
consequence I fear of general ignorance of the specific natures
of all three and an inability by many to graps the enormity
of the destructive power of nuclear weapons.

--

FF