Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: .::Tin Can::. on May 17, 2004, 09:37:58 pm
-
IN YOUR FACES!
Today:
A 155 mm (I think that big) artilery shell set to blow, found in Bagdad as an intended explosive, was recovered and luckily did NOT explode, due to poor chemical mixings.
The shell was full of serin gas, a gas so fatal a single drop and you will be dead. The gas causes your muscles to convulse and you basically have a ceisure until your body gives out and you eventually die. The shell had a large destructive radius, and if it managed to go off an untold number of people would be dead.
Lets put it into a scenario. If this sort of thing went off in New York you would be looking at THOUSANDS of people dead. Maybe even more then that. This gas is highly toxic and deadly. Something like this is considered a bioweapon and in turn a WMD.
Ah... it feels good to find something worthwhile looking for...
-
You moron.
-
I always supported the war, if not for the WMDs then at least to get Hussein.
-
If you'd actually bothered to read the article:
However, a senior coalition source has told the BBC the round does not signal the discovery of weapons of mass destruction or the escalation of insurgent activity.
It's the equivelant of a French farmer digging up a WW2 mine and using it to kill foxes.
And it's worth noting that while they say a 'single pinhead of sarin can kill a man', both people affected by it were treated and suffered no longer-term effects.
That's how little of it there was.
-
Originally posted by an0n
You moron.
-
poor, poor fool.
This is even more pathetic than those British helium vans a while back. Not to mention the sarin has in all likelyhood expired years ago and is now harmless.
-
Originally posted by an0n
You moron.
-
Originally posted by an0n
You moron.
-
I wouldn't be suprized if this did come from Sadam's stash, but still. this is nothing to go "IN YOUR FACES!" about, it's ONE artilery shell, and before you start going off about my 'libral activist judges legislateing from the bench', look around, I've been one of the hard headedest suporters of the Iraq war, and I'm still calling you a moron for this. people like you make my job _SO_ much harder. just wait quietly let little things like this slide with just a "oh, look, isn't that intresting" don't make a big deal out of it, so when the the day comes that we do find the giant vault of anti-mater hidden under the sands you can realy rub 'there' faces in it, but untill that day, just be quiet becase if we do find it 'they' won't care anymore.
it's become quite aparent that Sadam probly did destroy his weapons, quite likely he did this becase he knew we were comeing and figured we'd invade, find nothing, be humiliated, and leave in disgrace, therefore alowing him to make all the weapons of the rainbow and if we ever said anyhting he'd be able to point to our adventure. I remember posting this posability about 6 months before the invasion, but I can't seem to find the post.
anyway...
Originally posted by an0n
You moron.
-
Cut him some slack, will ya. Just because you don't happen to subscribe to the WMD idea, don't blast him because he's on the opposite side.
That's the biggest problem with most of you, an me to an extent, you attack people who don't agree with on all points and chase them away, it's not a good way to treat people.
Everybody knows Saddam's cache of WMDs is in Syria, coming back across the border with the Syrian Intel people secretly leading the insurgency.
-
Just because you didn't back up your post with an article in the first place, regardless of you being right or wrong.
[q]Originally posted by an0n
You moron.[/q]
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Cut him some slack, will ya. Just because you don't happen to subscribe to the WMD idea, don't blast him because he's on the opposite side.
That's the biggest problem with most of you, an me to an extent, you attack people who don't agree with on all points and chase them away, it's not a good way to treat people.
Everybody knows Saddam's cache of WMDs is in Syria, coming back across the border with the Syrian Intel people secretly leading the insurgency.
I didn't attack him. Its just that he's blowing it way out of proportion.
And no, everyone does not know that Saddam's weapons are in Syria. Have you any factual evidence to back this up, or are you just generally mistrustful of Syria, so therefore they must have 'em, the rascals.
They were probably destroyed back during the first Gulf War. Inspectors found nothing during their long stay in the 90s and still found nothing in 2002/2003.
-
I did atack him, and it's becase I am on his side in this issue, and this was just stupid.
wouldn't be suprised that Syria has 'em, but I've seen less evedence of this than for the idea that the allegation was mearly a smoak screen to cover Bush's incompedence. If we're so sure that Syria has them I want a SEAL team to go into Syria take controle of a facility were they are hideing the stuff and invite all the worlds media in to see it as Al Baradi or some one comes in and on international telivision says "well it looks like we found Iraq's weapons of mas destruction". if that would happen we'd probly gain enough political capitol to not only justify the Iraq war but probly one against Syria, and ... oh Iran (just for the hell of it) as well.
-
...but the SEAL squad would just plant the weapons there in the first place.
You, sir, obviously have no idea how real conspiracy theories work. It all goes back to the Trilateral Commision.
-
or I s'pose... we could just nuke 'em all, that'd send a mesage
:)
-
1 Sarin gas shell = WMD?
:lol:
-
All that aside, where's the surprise? It's already known there was sarin weapons in Irak, Hussein used those on the Kurds, hohe, wake up!
Nothing new under the sun.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
...but the SEAL squad would just plant the weapons there in the first place.
Only if they didn't manage to drown themselves before getting to the objective like in Grenada.
-
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040518/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_sarin&cid=540&ncid=716
U.S. officials believe, based on evidence, that the shell was an experimental munition produced before the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites), called a binary type — a bomb carrying two separate chemicals that when combined in an explosion, produce sarin.
Originally posted by an0n
You moron.
Originally posted by karajorma
Only if they didn't manage to drown themselves before getting to the objective like in Grenada.
Or crash into each other like in Iran
-
Originally posted by Gank
Or crash into each other like in Iran
Well IIRC that was the Green Berets but point taken :D
-
Guys, lay off the derogatory remarks. You're just making morons out of yourselves, not him.
Originally posted by 01010
1 Sarin gas shell = WMD?
:lol:
This is not just directed at our binary friend, but to everyone who questions calling it a WMD:
Had it gone off in a major "western" (incl. Eurpoean, mind you) city, killed 1,867.4 people, and been claimed by Saddam loyalists as their retaliation for XYZ, would you even question the WMD classification?
No, I think not.
Sometimes I think people forget that ABC (Atomic, Biological, Chemical) weapons are weapons of mass destruction. Just because the gas may have been inert or ineffective doesn't mean that it's not a WMD. If someone points a loaded AK-47 at you from 20 meters, flips the saftey off, and pulls the trigger, does it make one iota of difference about his hostile intentions if the gun jams or not?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Well IIRC that was the Green Berets but point taken :D
Delta iirc though I think seals were involved as well.
Originally posted by Sandwich
Had it gone off in a major "western" (incl. Eurpoean, mind you) city, killed 1,867.4 people, and been claimed by Saddam loyalists as their retaliation for XYZ, would you even question the WMD classification?
Sarins been used in built up areas before with limited effectiveness, Aum whatever they were used it in a subway in tokyo a few years back. Despite being the ideal location for such an attack, enclosed space packed with people only a handful died. Chemical weapons have a far greater reputation than they deserve, during the first gulf war for example only 10,000 of Irans half million dead were killed by chem weapons despite Iraqs heavy usage of it, I think the figures were something like 3-4 shells fired for every man killed. Theres far more effective and lethal weapons like cluster bombs, faes and napalm which deserve the wmd title.
As for the derogatory remarks, he did make a moron out of himself and should be told so. repeatedly.
-
I supported the war on the premise of what **** and Blair said about Iraq's WMD capabilities which we now know were greatly and shamefully exaggerated. One Sarin shell does not vindicate these claims - all it 'proves' is had Saddam complied with demands to destroy his chemical weapons, he might've missed a single unit with only minor tactical value. If they found ballistic missiles with VX nerve gas warheads it'd be a different story, but with over a year spent in Iraq and this being the worst thing the coalition has unearthed, it doesn't change my views at all.
-
It's not like finding WMD would make any difference now, would it? What's important now is to rig some elections and then get the hell out of there.
-
It's one shell. One we already knew he had. One the BBC is reporting the allies say is probably left over from the first gulf war.
IMO It's probably one of about 10 or so left from the Desert Storm era kicking around that someone kept for a rainy day - and since the US are raining hellfire missiles on them they decided to use one. Either that or some punk got lucky, found the stash and decided to be a hero.
The point being, one shell doesn't constitute a major find or proof of recent WMD development.
-
Blair said about Iraq's WMD capabilities which we now know were greatly and shamefully exaggerated.
I'll comment on that in 45 minutes.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Guys, lay off the derogatory remarks. You're just making morons out of yourselves, not him.
This is not just directed at our binary friend, but to everyone who questions calling it a WMD:
Had it gone off in a major "western" (incl. Eurpoean, mind you) city, killed 1,867.4 people, and been claimed by Saddam loyalists as their retaliation for XYZ, would you even question the WMD classification?
No, I think not.
Sometimes I think people forget that ABC (Atomic, Biological, Chemical) weapons are weapons of mass destruction. Just because the gas may have been inert or ineffective doesn't mean that it's not a WMD. If someone points a loaded AK-47 at you from 20 meters, flips the saftey off, and pulls the trigger, does it make one iota of difference about his hostile intentions if the gun jams or not?
True, but we all know that when Dubya went to war, he was reffering to a very specific sort of weapon with a very specific sort of capability. Sure, you COULD say that an AK-47 is a weapon of mass destruction, but thats not the classical defintion, and its not what Dubya meant when he reffered to Saddam's WMD.
This shell is no more a WMD than a truck bomb, cluster bomb or missle. You talk about how much damage this would inflict if detonated in a highly populated civilian area, but a cluster bombs could (and has, many times) inflict comparable damage in the same area. What I'm saying is, this is nothing really special.
Dubya reffered to tons and tons of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. This has not vindicated his outlandish pre-war claims.
-
I never supported the war. **** has ulterior motives for going into Iraq. He just used america's stupidity and paranoia as a vehicle to invade it.
-
Originally posted by vyper
IMO It's probably one of about 10 or so left from the Desert Storm era kicking around that someone kept for a rainy day - and since the US are raining hellfire missiles on them they decided to use one. Either that or some punk got lucky, found the stash and decided to be a hero.
Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said he believed that insurgents who planted the explosive did not know it contained the nerve agent. The 155-mm shell did not have markings to indicate it contained a chemical agent, a U.S. official said.
Quoted from the ap article linked to above
-
Which makes them stupid, not people launching wmd :D
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Had it gone off in a major "western" (incl. Eurpoean, mind you) city, killed 1,867.4 people, and been claimed by Saddam loyalists as their retaliation for XYZ, would you even question the WMD classification?
No, I think not.
Sometimes I think people forget that ABC (Atomic, Biological, Chemical) weapons are weapons of mass destruction. Just because the gas may have been inert or ineffective doesn't mean that it's not a WMD. If someone points a loaded AK-47 at you from 20 meters, flips the saftey off, and pulls the trigger, does it make one iota of difference about his hostile intentions if the gun jams or not?
I quote:
weap·on ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wpn)
n.
1. An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword.
2. Zoology. A part or organ, such as a claw or stinger, used by an animal in attack or defense.
3. A means used to defend against or defeat another: Logic was her weapon.
mass ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ms)
n.
2. A grouping of individual parts or elements that compose a unified body of unspecified size or quantity: “Take mankind in mass, and for the most part, they seem a mob of unnecessary duplicates” (Herman Melville).
3. A large but nonspecific amount or number: a mass of bruises.
4. The principal part; the majority: the mass of the continent.
5. The physical volume or bulk of a solid body.
9. masses The body of common people or people of low socioeconomic status: “Give me your tired, your poor,/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” (Emma Lazarus).
de·struc·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-strkshn)
n.
1. The act of destroying.
2. The condition of having been destroyed.
3. The cause or means of destroying: weapons that could prove to be the destruction of humankind.
By the very definition of it, it has to cause a lot of random destruction or death in and of itself.
By your definition an air rifle is a WMD because an orbital rail-cannon is one. Or a match is a WMD because a forced supernova is.
Bunch of ****ing nonsense.
-
well in all honesty it is a WMD, it's just a patheticly small one. we were told that there were hundreds of thousands of these, the fact that we have, after more than a year, found only one of these things is the reason why it's stupid to use this as a claime for vindication.
now if this leads to us finding some huge (hundreds of thousands) stash of these things are you still going to question weather this is a WMD? (safe question, not going to happen)
if so, you are the moron.
-
With the exception of a few nuclear mortars developed by the US government in the 60's, a single round of ammunition cannot ever be considered a weapon of mass destruction.
-
I wish people would start using NBC or ABC again.
-
Gank, that was one the most horrific thing I have ever seen on this board. Ever.
an0n, the fact that it exists at all is a violation of several UN resolutions dating back over a decade. However, IMO, this particular shell, while it does technically violate both UN resolutions and fall into the category of WMD, isn't a major issue. If they find a second one, that's when they need to start worrying.
I would note that the word *can* in reference to anything is only a statement of possibility. It *can* kill with only a drop, but remember, that's an undilluted sample. This particular shell didn't release that much, and it was sure as hell dilluted.
-
Originally posted by an0n
With the exception of a few nuclear mortars developed by the US government in the 60's, a single round of ammunition cannot ever be considered a weapon of mass destruction.
you are makeing a good point, but chemical weapons are described as weapons of mass destruction, and this is a chemical weapon. the whole 'mass destruction' thing is more in terms of how much damage it cam do for how big it is, this shell could have, in theory, if used on the right target, at the right time, and in the right way, killed sevral thousand, a normal artilery peice probly couldn't have killed any more than a hundred.
-
Originally posted by Gank
As for the derogatory remarks, he did make a moron out of himself and should be told so. repeatedly.
Whether or not he did and should be told so is besides the point. I said to stop it, and that's the end of discussion.
Furthermore, what the [SIZE=8]HELL[/SIZE] has gotten into you guys? Since when did HLP become such an unfriendly place to be? You guys sicken me. :ick: :no:
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Furthermore, what the [SIZE=8]HELL[/SIZE] has gotten into you guys? Since when did HLP become such an unfriendly place to be? You guys sicken me. :ick: :no:
Do you mean the unfriendly remarks against the thread poster, or the basics about saying this is a loon with a souvenire instead of the justification for a war of self defense by the US?
Can someone tell me how Saddam could've lobbed this thing into London or Washington DC in the aforementioned 45 minutes?
-
not sure about 45 min. but it could easily have been smuggled in, but that's irrelevent.
-
Originally posted by Moonsword
Gank, that was one the most horrific thing I have ever seen on this board. Ever.
I meant the terms NBC or ABC, not the actual weapons themselves. Though I could think up a few uses for them now that I think about it.
Originally posted by Bobboau
this shell could have, in theory, if used on the right target, at the right time, and in the right way, killed sevral thousand, a normal artilery peice probly couldn't have killed any more than a hundred.
Nonsense, the Aum Shakura or whatever they were used Sarin in the right place, at the right time and the results were nowhere near what you claim. A single experimental artillery shell thats well past its sell by date isnt going to have a better effect.
-
I said it was theoreticaly posable
-
An America cluster bomb has the ability to destroy an entire village in a single 'hit' and kill tens of thousands of people.
Hell, a grenade in a football stadium can kill thousands.
There's no way you're telling me they're weapons of mass destruction.
As a general rule, if it's a tactical, non-nuclear weapon: It's not a WMD.
If it's a strategic weapon: It's a WMD.
A mortar with a drop or two of decomposed sarin inside is not a WMD. Hell, they'd probably have had to lick the inside of it for it to have been fatal.
-
Originally posted by Gank
I meant the terms NBC or ABC, not the actual weapons themselves. Though I could think up a few uses for them now that I think about it.
I was sure you meant the news channels, in which case it would be quite horrific.
-
from what we know, this shell could be instead a proof that Saddam had not the possibilities to build weapons of mass destructions: why he should had such an old weapon elseway?
Or, maybe, it was a shell stolen by Saddam's arsenal by the iraqui resistance years ago and kept hidden for later use against Saddam himself...and, the irony, used now against who got him..
Or, maybe those terrorists or whatever they are just found a secret Saddam's deposit of those weapons....
who knows...
-
Originally posted by an0n
If you'd actually bothered to read the article:
It's the equivelant of a French farmer digging up a WW2 mine and using it to kill foxes.
And it's worth noting that while they say a 'single pinhead of sarin can kill a man', both people affected by it were treated and suffered no longer-term effects.
That's how little of it there was.
no, there was a significant ammount in the shell. but that type of weapon can't be used as an improv bomb. the chemicals don't mix correctly and thus only very trace ammounts are produced in the explosion.
but yeah, i still support the war, but this isn't a WMD discovery.
-
but there's always the unanswered question of whether, even if activated correctly, the explosion would have consumed the Sarin.
meh some asshat found a mortar from GW1 and didn't know how to use it. no biggie.
-
it's a bullet compaired to an 8,000 lb bomb, there the same class of weapons.
chemical weapons are in a class of weapons refered to as "weapons of mass destruction". it's stupid and pointless to argue, becase this shell is insignifagant, and it just sounds like you're trying to play some retoricle game when you go "well this isn't realy a weapon of mass destruction". it isn't the first WMD found in Iraq it won't be the last, but it's prety much been found as fact that the WMDs we were suposed to find, the signifigant type capable of liveing up to there names, aren't there. and Bush is a moron.
-
Which is why I have to agree with Gank on this, the acronym NBC is much better suited to describe these weapons as a class. WMD implies magnitude, but that's not how it's being used. In fact WMD for chemical and biological weapons is somewhat of a misnomer, neither one actually destroys anything other than living tissue (and some localized burning, in the case of strong chemical agents, but that's irrelivant to this discussion). The point is, a small amount could in theory kill a lot of people, and cannot be detected as easily as conventional explosives can.
I, for one, have gotten quite sick of "Teh terrorists are coming with ther weapons of mass destruction!!!111oneone" routine, but it's all the general public seems to be able to understand. Education is an invaluable thing, more people should really try it.
-
Most Americans don't understand the terms 'nuclear', 'biological' and 'chemical'.
Weapons of mass DESTRUCTION is just another of those stupid buzz-words that's simple enough for the morons to understand but has enough bad connotations to keep them blindly opposed to anything and everything even remotely related to them.
-
Well, when it killed 12 people and made thousands sick on the Japanese subway, it was considered a WMD then.
I'll wait for results before I form an opinion, even Rumsfield has admitted that the person who rigged the bomb may not even have known that it contained Sarin. But whether it was there before the War, the fact that a nerve agent HAS been found in Iraq will, as most of us know, be advertised to the full. So if this IS a smuggled in weapon, whoever did it has just tipped the scales slightly more towards America in the propoganda war. I bet they're feeling a bit silly about that! :(
-
So, anyone heard about Hussein lately?
Coulda swore there was some kind of convention on the treatment of captured foreign leaders.......
-
Hyup, the Dog Collars the right size, and theres new batteries in the digital camera ;)
-
They (the US) broadcast his dental examination for all thr world to see. No better way to utterly de-mystify and humiliate him. Now, he's just an old man with shaggy hair getting his teeth checked out.
-
Originally posted by Sandwich
Furthermore, what the [SIZE=8]HELL[/SIZE] has gotten into you guys? Since when did HLP become such an unfriendly place to be? You guys sicken me. :ick: :no:
Nice work. You have a go at us for insulting him, then you insult us.
Fan-****ing-tastic.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I said it was theoreticaly posable
Theoretically maybe, but this was a binary type agent in an artillery shell. In order for it to work correctly it has to be fired from an artillery piece, the chances of terrorists setting up a 155mm howitzer and firing one of these things into the right place at the right time under the right conditions is on a par with the pope declaring Bin Laden the second coming. Bit of realism never hurts, stops the more niave among us from pissing their knickers in fright.
-
Well, I would suspect that the charge is shaped to throw the Sarin backwards, since pushing 3/4 oz of Nerve gas into the ground is merely going to give a few spiders one hell of a time.
The Sarin may well have been out of date etc, but it won't matter in the end, Nerve Gas is Nerve Gas, regardless of whether it is active, delivered correctly or more or less inert. It is THAT fact that will be drawn to peoples attention if this is true.
Does seem a little odd that it was found so soon after the whole Abu Ghraib incident...'We may have found some of our soldiers were torturing prisoners, but the terrorists used nerve gas!'.
But then, stranger things HAVE happened.
-
Summary:
1) It's an old shell probably a GW1 leftover
2) It was unmarkked
3) It was overlooked in the mass disposal of NBCWs from GW1 due to 2
4) the idiot insurgents didn't know it was a CW due to 2
5) A single, very old CW round doesn't prove that saddam has had a chemical weapons program anytime in the last 13 years
[size=12]6) You cannot use this to justify ****'s bull****, due to 5[/size]
-
You have a lot of rage in you, don't you Kazan?
-
I certainly agree that this is no evidence that Nerve gas has been made in the last 13 years in Iraq. A Factory, or an Ammunition dump is the only thing that would convince me that production was even beginning to reach a level where I could believe that Saddam had any intent of using it on his Neighbouring countries or further afield.
-
This is amazing. TinCan puts up one dinky little post and the whole lot of 'you' swarm around like a pack of hungry coyotes. A bunch of hippies armed with bazookas. Lovely.
He's right, you're wrong, get over it.
-
Right about what?
Right that they've found a shell, certainly.
Right that it constitutes a major weapons programme, I think not.
-
We've been over this, a single howitzer shell full of Sarin does not constitute a WMD; it has no strategic value whatsoever.
-
Exactly.
ionia clearly doesn't have the sense to read the entire thread.
-
Or the damn news reports about it, most of which say exactly that.
-
Wow...
Oh, man the flaming never stop for TinCan.
I'm sorry man, even though I agree with them. you came on too strong, by saying "In Your Faces" when you really didn't think about it
-
If a shell is an WMD, then every country in the world has WMD's.
-
Exactly. He mistook rabid groundhogs for reasonable people. I believe an "in your face" was absolutely justified and absolutely right. yeah sure, people will go "but it's only ONE" shell. wait till the other few thousand are located, then we'll see who's laughing.
So much for open-minded leftism.
-
Word of advice, don't go there...
People often don't respect other people's beliefs around here, no offense guys :D
-
Time for bed, kiddies.