Monday, 17 May 2004
|1527 - No WMD in Iraq, huh?|
If there weren't any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, where did terrorists get an artillery shell designed to release sarin gas on detonation, as reported in this CNN story? Or another shell containing mustard gas?
No, they didn't get them from the US. The US military, by law, cannot use chemical weapons, and has none that would be safe to use...and would have none at all if it weren't for environmentalists blocking all efforts to destroy the ones stockpiled for decades and unsafe to use.
current mood: curious
I wouldn't be surprised if the french have been supllying stuff like that.
(b) Saddam, via Syria
(c) Saddam, via Iran
My choice is (a), possibly (b)
Who knows, man, but one shell is hardly the 1000 tons of Antrax we were promised in the run up.
Ohhh bullshit! The Americans would have more weapons to hide than anyone else. Secondly these supposed "shells" are MULTIPURPOSE. That is they can be used for things other than mustard gas and nerve gas. Finally just because you have a cake tin doesn't mean you have an oven or that you have been baking a cake! It doesn't even indicate what cake you have been baking! Don't believe all you hear on CNN.
There is a philoophical critique of science that says theories produce facts. Not the other way around. This crtique of human thought processes is now widely accepted. Is it not posible that they are so desperate to prove the theory that chemical weapons were present they are being selective with the way such things are interpreted?
The field test for sarin is unreliable, and even the military said they needed to do more testing. Previous tests have also turned up sarin that then proved to be wrong. They also said it was unclear whether or not the people who had it knew they had a round containing sarin, presumably cause they didn't use it like they knew what it could do, presuming that it did indeed have sarin. Just because a single round used in Iraq a year after the official end of the war *might* have had sarin in it doesn't mean the Iraqi government was hiding weapons on mass destruction. Even the U.S. government says alot of people from all over, with a lot of weapons from all over, are coming in to fight.
"The US military, by law, cannot use chemical weapons"
Nor can we use nuclear weapons. However, the "bunker buster" bomb is a NUCLEAR BOMB. We've broken the law before. Why would we hesitate to do it again?
1) We have never used a nuclear weapon in combat aside from the two used on Japan.
2) The bunker buster bomb is a large (2000 pound) conventional weapon inside a hardened case designed to penetrate before detonation. Nothing nuclear here.
3) The chemical weapons we do have, in a warehouse outside Indianapolis, are unusable.
All of those refer to developing a new weapon. (No wonder it was news to me!) We do not have nuclear bunker busters yet. Further, as with any nuclear weapon, their use would have to be specifically authorized by the President; they are not categorically outlawed, unlike chemical weapons.
Whew. Somehow I'd gotten confused and thought those were what we had used. Hence, the '...', when I realized that we hadn't even made them yet... :P