Weapons of Mass Destraction

Sandman · February 24, 2003, 21:03

This issue often turns up in Iraq threads, but I think that it deserves deeper discussion.

It is perfectly clear to me that chemical and biological weapons types are not nearly as destructive as nuclear weapons, or even as destructive as many types of conventional weapons.

As far as I can see, chemical and biological weapons have been hyped up to levels which are completely unrelated to the actual danger posed. This is partially accomplished by their 'linkage' to nukes, partially due to the fact that they're banned and partially the result of false or misleading media statements about the effectiveness of the weapons. These include wild assertions that a drop of VX could kill 10000, or flask of anthrax could wipe out an entire city.

I don't deny that chemical agents have their uses, since they are useful against poorly equipped masses of infantry (like the Iranians' 'final offensives'). But that is still a specialised role, and even then they're not that effective.

As terrorist weapons, gases have a bad record. Several operatives releasing sarin gas into Tokyo's subway system in a coordinated attack killed 11 people. A single lunatic with a carton of flammable liquid killed over 100 in Seoul's subway. The anthrax attacks in the US killed 8 people, and caused widespread disruption, but two people with a sniper rifle killed more people, and at least as much disruption.

I am extremely disappointed that I have not seen the weapons of mass destruction label attacked in the media. It really is nothing but propaganda.

What's worse, is that while Iraq is getting in severe trouble for having chemical and biological weapons, or the means to make them (better known as an infrastructure), more and more countries drift towards acquiring nuclear weapons. The situation is akin to complaining that the lifejackets aren't comfortable whilst the Titanic is sinking. I fear that our leaders are starting to believe their own propaganda, which is even worse than them not believing it.

Urban Ranger · February 24, 2003, 22:47

Yes, neither chemical nor biological weapons are "weapons of mass destruction," only nuclear ones are. This is quite clear. Therefore, I am getting rather tired of people who keep harping about this whole "WoMD" silliness without thought. I am preparing my flamethrower now.

"I fear that our leaders are starting to believe their own propaganda"

Start to sound like Kim Jing-Il of DPRK.

The Vagabond · February 24, 2003, 23:17

When I first read the thread title, I wondered whether it was about Weapons of Mass Distraction or Weapons of Mass Destruction. You can go both ways from there.

H Tower · February 24, 2003, 23:24

i think poly is a weapon of mass destraction, god's knows i get very little homework done while surfing

Alinestra Covelia · February 24, 2003, 23:42

For many other female posters including myself, Linford Christie is harboring a weapon of mass distraction in his skintight leotards.

Ned · February 25, 2003, 00:24

Sandman, I can understand the chemical weapons as not being useful beyond certain areas of direct contamination. But aren't bioweapons a lot more dangerous? For example, the small amounts of anthrax that was released in the US killed neearly every who had direct contact with it. As well, why is Germany buying enough small pox vaccine to innoculate the entire country? This seems to suggest that once released, small pox will spread through contagion.

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 00:33

Biological weapons are the ones that scare me. Particularly Smallpox. Say for example that you infected twenty people and sent them to hang out in the worlds twenty busiest airports. I daresay that those twenty would kill vastly more people than the nineteen that highjacked four planes on 9/11. Unfortunately, I believe that this is a real possibility.

I have to agree with your conclusion on chem weapons. They can be highly effective only when applied with percision. A thing very unlikely to happen against a well prepared military or civilian scenario.

Still, I must add, anyone who has a track record of using them should have the world unite to take them away.

Boris Godunov · February 25, 2003, 00:44

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Sandman, I can understand the chemical weapons as not being useful beyond certain areas of direct contamination. But aren't bioweapons a lot more dangerous? For example, the small amounts of anthrax that was released in the US killed neearly every who had direct contact with it. As well, why is Germany buying enough small pox vaccine to innoculate the entire country? This seems to suggest that once released, small pox will spread through contagion.

Actually, anthrax was not particularly effective in harming people, and most of the people who came into proximity with it didn't die. The ones who did die had unusually strong exposure (like the guy in Florida, who got it in his eye because he was very short-sighted so held the envelope close to his face).

Smallpox would be a far greater worry as a biological agent, but as of yet there isn't really an effective means of spreading it.

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 00:46

Quote:

Smallpox would be a far greater worry as a biological agent, but as of yet there isn't really an effective means of spreading it.

Yes there is. People are the tried and true method. Infect one and expose him to five. Expose those five to five each....etc

Boris Godunov · February 25, 2003, 00:54

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Yes there is. People are the tried and true method. Infect one and expose him to five. Expose those five to five each....etc

Your airport scenario wouldn't really work too well, though, considering the virus is not particularly contageous as an airborne agent. It is most easily contracted through physical contact.

Now if a small pox-infested person went around rubbing himself all over people...

Urban Ranger · February 25, 2003, 00:55

Who are the morons that kept the specimen in the labs?

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 00:59

Quote:

Now if a small pox-infested person went around rubbing himself all over people...

Ever been in a New York subway ??

Quote:

Who are the morons that kept the specimen in the labs?

Good damn question!

Boris Godunov · February 25, 2003, 01:00

Quote:

Originally posted by PLATO1003

Ever been in a New York subway ??

Location field...

PLATO · February 25, 2003, 01:03

Quote:

Location field...

Oops! Guess you got my point though.

Alinestra Covelia · February 25, 2003, 02:01

The smallpox bacteria was kept alive in a Russian laboratory because of the same reason you might want to keep pandas alive - they were there and they're endangered.

I don't see that as particularly reprehensible. The reason we even had that choice in the first place was beacuse we had so successfully beaten the bacteria that it couldn't do us any harm.

If we rest on our complacent laurels and let our defences down to where we are once again at risk, that's hardly the fault of the small pox bacteria themselves.

Urban Ranger · February 25, 2003, 02:05

Alie,

Unlike giant pandas, there's no redeeming values to the smallpox microbes.

However, since Hussein has been unlikely to received the germs from the Soviets, it is highly unlikely that he would have it.

Skanky Burns · February 25, 2003, 02:43

IIRC, smallpox was kept by Russia and America so that if one side released it, the other would be able to work on a cure for it.

Urban Ranger · February 25, 2003, 02:52

I thought so. Hussein might have gotten his from the CDC. Whops.

Anyway, why would anybody needs a cure when a simple vaccine is available?

Skanky Burns · February 25, 2003, 03:00

Vaccine I should say. Although true enough, they would already have had a vaccine. Perhaps it was just a MAD thing, so neither side would have had an advantage.

Urban Ranger · February 25, 2003, 03:02

Jon Miller · February 25, 2003, 03:22

umm, Urban?

you know that the US keeps a much tighter hold on it's stuff than the former USSR does

that has been seen time and time again

if he has it, and got it from one of us, it was most probably Russia (not officially)

Jon Miller

Jaguar · February 25, 2003, 03:50

Sandman, excellent points except for the very stupid pun in the thread title.