BF2S Forums WMD"S found in Iraq!!!!

I stopped keeping up with political issues a while ago (college homework takes a long time!), but heres what I believe about the whole event.  Regardless of whether WMD was being developed by Saddam Hussein in the 1990's, he did use things like Sarin and Mustard gas against the Iranians and the Kurds.  The followers of this man have butchered countless civilians of every background for political purposes and without a hint of protest from human rights activists.  This man persecuted thousands of individuals because they took the wrong side in activities not so dissimilar to those we are involved in here.  The merits of the reasons given by the United States for the overthrow of the Baathist regime not withstanding, I assert that the event will generally have a positive effect on the peace and prosperity of the world as a whole.  We have seen that nations with a free people are generally better off.  We have also seen that a free people is more likely to peacefully coexist with its neighbors.  Since the end of the Second World War, Western Europe has been at peace, Cold War not withstanding.  Nations like France, Britain, Germany; all of whom were rivals just a century before, are now partners in one of the largest economic entities in existence.  Japan, once a highly imperialistic nation, is now a peaceful and highly technological nation.  Whether the actions of the United States were justified by its reasons or not, the end result will probably be positive.  You all argue about the reasons given for the conflict, but do not address the consequences of the event.  Those who believe that the reasons were inadequate may see the United States as hypocritical or aggressive or even untrustworthy, but do not deny that the motley bunch of Baathists and religious fundamentalists popularly called "the insurgents" should all be confronted for their actions.  Most especially, do not believe that the people of Iraq were better off having a murderous regime controlling them than they are without.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13480264/

chemical weapons are not WMD's... never the less still a major threat

Horseman 77 wrote:

No kidding, Do you know how long ago the War started and how long ago they abandoned the maintenance program of these weapons?

It doesn't seem to say how long they were unusable for, or why.  It could be that they were made unusable.

Uh-huh, and how were they going to make use of it without a delivery system?

simple, and to the point.

Both the fox article, and the MSNBC article reference this simple fact (which in my opinion is the only one worth taking from this article).  Many Democrats have been saying for years "There are No WMD's in Iraq".  Well, there are, and have been, (and we will find more) Munitions, that the UN considers WMD's.  Its funny too, because the response (in both articles) is "Well those aren't the WMD's we were looking for."  I about fell out of my chair, it's like listening to kids on a playground. 

Never trust any Comercial Media Source.  CNN, and the lot now have everyone convinced that WMD's are the sole reason that we went to war.  It will be interesting to see how all this plays out.  The world as a whole will be a better place without Sadam Hussien, and with a free Iraq.

David

Basically the whole issue is because America has decided to define almost every weapon except small arms a WMD.

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD
wrote:

Other documents expand the definition of WMD to include radiological or conventional weapons. The US military refers to WMD as:

    Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people. Weapons of mass destruction can be high explosives or nuclear, biological, chemical, and radiological weapons, but exclude the means of transporting or propelling the weapon where such means is a separable and divisible part of the weapon.([8])

While in US civil defense, the category is now Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE), which defines WMD as:

    (1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life. This definition derives from US law, 18 U.S.C. Section 2332a and the referenced 18 USC 921. Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs, pipe bombs, shoe bombs, cactus needles coated with botulin toxin, etc. have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

The irony of hammering a country to pieces with WMDs because you suspect them to possess WMDs and want to stop them using them is priceless.

edit:fixed link

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-06-23 11:04:26)

Bubbalo wrote:

Uh-huh, and how were they going to make use of it without a delivery system?

Ya that would baffle the hell out of them wouldnt it. lol

Bubbalo wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

lol ! Liberals, They refuse to call Mustard gas and Sarrin gas  a WMD but an M4 Carbine is, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

Only, if those laws are current then it must be assumed to be the belief of the current Conservative government.  And besides, nerve gas isn't a WMD.  The only way it can be used as such is with large amounts, and I could use large amounts of grenades as a WMD.  Or large amounts of m4 carbines, for that matter.

You stupid ignorant moron.  It takes aprox 2.5microns of a nerve agent to kill someone.  That is a VERY tiny amount and thats just if it gets on the skin. Less is required if it is airborne to kill someone.  Now imagine a bomb with over 500 lbs of this stuff detonating in the air.....leaves alot of people dead when it spreads.  You wanna test me on this one.  I believe I know alot more about this shit than you do since I have been trained on how to deal with these kinds of weapons, how to treat it if ingested, how it can be ingested, and how much of certain items it takes to kill someone.  And if you have ever watched what a nerve agent does to something you would think twice.  It is definately a WMD.  A nerve agent causes you to convulge violently often causing you to tear you own muscles as well as break your own bones.  Its not pretty and being shot my an M4 or killed by a grenade is alot more humane than by nerve gas.

^^ yup, but the news source is still FOX. that makes me a bit...no make that a lot weary.

I tell you why its not publicized much, other than Fox news.....

Its something good about the war, now if they were to find a mass grave of 500 bodies, then it would be all over the place

iamangry wrote:

People keep commenting all over the forums that "nerve gas isn't a WMD."  I disagree, heres the math behind my disagreement:

First, some facts, easily verifiable:
- Sarin is lethal at a body concentration of 0.01 mg toxin/kg body
- The atomic strike at Hiroshima used a bomb with appx. 60 kg of fissile material (U-235) and was responsible for a staggering 140000 deaths (80k instantly, 60k due to fallout)

Now, some assumptions to make the math less daunting:
- People are appx. 50kg
- The efficiency of the gas when dispersed in the air is 1% (not verified, but seems reasonable)

With this in mind:
- A lethal dose of sarin for the avg. person is just 0.01E-3 * 50 = 0.5E-3 grams
- This makes for 2000 lethal doses per gram of agent.
- The introduction of the efficiency factor makes for a realistic 20 deaths/gram, or 20000 deaths/kg

Comparatively, the use of what everyone would agree was a WMD, the Hiroshima bomb, generates the following numbers:
- 140000 ppl killed/60kg U-235 = appx. 2300 deaths/kg

In other words, if deployed properly, sarin is by my calculations a full 10 times more lethal than the most famous use of WMD.  If you think the efficiency factor for the sarin is too high at 1 percent, keep in mind that even at 1/100 of a percent the lethality of sarin is still appx 1/10th that of the Hiroshima attack.  Just because nerve agents dont create towering balls of fire doesn't mean they're not extremely lethal.

EDIT: Looks like someone alreadly got after this while I was writing this up.  Still, I think this is a good mathematical form of his argument.

I agree that biological and chemical agents are WMDs, but they still a different class of weapon to nukes.  They are closer to high explosive or napalm in my opinion, due to the deployment issues.

And also there is one fundamental flaw with your calculations, in that the Hiroshima bomb was 13 megatons, and modern dial-a-yield nukes go up to 150 megatons.  And the effect on a densely populated city would be near total annihalation, with deaths in the millions, not hundreds of thousands.

EDIT: Perhaps Weapons of Potential Mass Destruction if There was the Means to Deploy Them on a Mass Scale would be better. WPMDTMDTMSs.

Last edited by UnOriginalNuttah (2006-06-24 07:35:07)