[Sandwich]

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?

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?

[Gank]

Originally posted by karajorma


Well IIRC that was the Green Berets but point taken

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.

[SadisticSid]

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.

[kode]

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.

[vyper]

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.

[vyper]

Blair said about Iraq's WMD capabilities which we now know were greatly and shamefully exaggerated.

I'll comment on that in 45 minutes.

[Rictor]

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.

[Kosh]

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.

[Gank]

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

[vyper]

Which makes them stupid, not people launching wmd

[an0n]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[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.

[Gank]

I wish people would start using NBC or ABC again.

[Moonsword]

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.

[Bobboau]

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.

[Sandwich]

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.

[kasperl]

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.

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?

[Bobboau]

not sure about 45 min. but it could easily have been smuggled in, but that's irrelevent.

[Gank]

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.