Author Topic: Mustard gas and Long range missles? (Read 646 times)

Habu · « **Reply #15 on:** February 14, 2003, 04:33:31 PM »

Just my opinion but I think that since Mustard gas is so primative and ineffective that any they find is just left over and was forgotten.

I think the real threat is the nerve gas and the biological weapons that are much more advanced and deadly.

A terrorist can launch a biological attack by disperseing Anthrax or some other agent in a crowded area and then leave and escape. It will not be for days until the attack is discovered.

That is the type of weapon that scares me and that is the type of weapon that the inspectors should be looking for in ernest. And if they find any then I say make Bagdad a glass parking lot. Because it is not for any other reason that such a thing would be made by Iraq except for an attack on the US mainland or Israel.

bounder · « **Reply #16 on:** February 14, 2003, 04:38:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Udie
1. Is Mustard gas a chemical weapon?

2. Is Mustard gas an illegal weapon by the geneva convention?

3. Was said Mustard gas declared back in December by irak?

Material breech, yet again, but hey it's not a big deal.

With us or against us diddlyers, I really don't think you want to be against us....

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes - that's how the inspectors knew about it.

Rather than a material breach of 1441, it was cited by Hans Blix as being a positive improvement in the substance of their compliance, as well as the process. A long way to go, but in the right direction.

Hortlund · « **Reply #17 on:** February 14, 2003, 04:46:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Dowding
We knew all that but still kept selling him the stuff. Let's not get all moralistic about it now.

So what the diddly does that have to do with anything?

He used WMDs on his own population.

Read above sentence 10 times.

Hortlund · « **Reply #18 on:** February 14, 2003, 04:50:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Habu
Just my opinion but I think that since Mustard gas is so primative and ineffective that any they find is just left over and was forgotten.

You should try sitting in a subway car when someone detonates a bomb containing such a primitive and ineffective substance... might change your view on things.

Habu · « **Reply #19 on:** February 14, 2003, 05:20:58 PM »

How would you get the Mustard gas into the subway and set it off so it disperses so quicky that it overwhelms everyone without then being warned by the screams and running away?

You need a pretty complicated system to get it aerosolized and dispersed quickly.

There are much quicker and easier ways to achieve the same effect.

Just because it can kill does not make it an effectice WMD. A car can be a lethal weapon too if you decide to use it that way. But when trying to kill 1000's of people a car is not effective.

Chemical warfare is banned (and for good reason). If Iraq decided to produce Mustard gas again after the ban they are idiots. Mustard gas is primitive. There are much more scary things that should be the priority. If they find a nerve gas stockpile invade. If they find a biological warfare lab invade. If Iraq resists the inspections invade. But to invade over a primitive and ineffective thing like Mustard gas only gives the French and Germans a reason to say the US is over reacting.

As much as I would like to see Saddam gone, you have to have a good reason to invade. Or else the rest of the world will say they did it over a technicality and not a real threat.

Maverick · « **Reply #20 on:** February 15, 2003, 12:26:42 PM »

Habu,

You are so naive that it boggles the mind.

Getting a canister of gas onto a train is not difficult. It doesn't take much to know that not all freight is scanned.

Getting it on the subway is even easier. Using a few, very few, cantidates for muslim heaven with a briefcase each would decimate a subway train in minutes. It can't be stopped by the passengers and there is no way off until it DOES stop. When the doors open there will be additional victims waiting on a crowded ram waiting to enter the coaches. This act would take FAR less coordination that the WTC did.

You say there is no reason to take this animal out?????? I can't see leaving the one leader in the world who has repeatedly used WMD's still holding them and passing them on to enemies who would be tickled pink to get a ticket to heaven with conventional explosives much less using a WMD.

Perhaps you could just take a trip over there and convince him to give up voluntarily. The sooner the better.

Habu · « **Reply #21 on:** February 15, 2003, 02:27:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Habu,

You are so naive that it boggles the mind.

Getting a canister of gas onto a train is not difficult. It doesn't take much to know that not all freight is scanned.

Getting it on the subway is even easier. Using a few, very few, cantidates for muslim heaven with a briefcase each would decimate a subway train in minutes. It can't be stopped by the passengers and there is no way off until it DOES stop. When the doors open there will be additional victims waiting on a crowded ram waiting to enter the coaches. This act would take FAR less coordination that the WTC did.

You say there is no reason to take this animal out?????? I can't see leaving the one leader in the world who has repeatedly used WMD's still holding them and passing them on to enemies who would be tickled pink to get a ticket to heaven with conventional explosives much less using a WMD.

Perhaps you could just take a trip over there and convince him to give up voluntarily. The sooner the better.

Man I wish I was in the weapons business and you were a buyer. l I could load you up with useless toejam.

Habu · « **Reply #22 on:** February 15, 2003, 02:42:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Maverick
Habu,

You are so naive that it boggles the mind.

Getting a canister of gas onto a train is not difficult. It doesn't take much to know that not all freight is scanned.

Getting it on the subway is even easier. Using a few, very few, cantidates for muslim heaven with a briefcase each would decimate a subway train in minutes. It can't be stopped by the passengers and there is no way off until it DOES stop. When the doors open there will be additional victims waiting on a crowded ram waiting to enter the coaches. This act would take FAR less coordination that the WTC did.

You say there is no reason to take this animal out?????? I can't see leaving the one leader in the world who has repeatedly used WMD's still holding them and passing them on to enemies who would be tickled pink to get a ticket to heaven with conventional explosives much less using a WMD.

Perhaps you could just take a trip over there and convince him to give up voluntarily. The sooner the better.

I think you are misunderstanding my arguement. I am saying the inspectors should be really focused on finding evidence of biological or nuclear weapons production or research.
That is the real scary stuff.

Oh and regarding your argument. Imagine I am in a subway car and a terrorist in the next car sets off a device with Mustard gas. I hear all sorts or screaming and I see people chokeing and collaspeing. I hit the stop strip. Run to the end of the train (or force open a door and jump down) and keep on running.

Now imagine the same terrorist with a few belts of explosives around him and you are in the car where I was with the last guy. He sets them off and guess what? You probably don't even know what hit you. And the explosion can set off secondary explosions if it is placed in an area with other explosive materials around (like a propane truck for example).

A primitive explosive is more effective that the gas you seem fixated on. The reason? You can't spread the gas quickly. And you can't carry the quantity necessary to do major killing by hand.

If I were trying to commit a terrorist act I would not be chooseing mustard gas to do so. I would be buying bags of Ammonium Nitrate and mixing it with diesel. Oh wait. That is exactly what terrorists seem to be doing these days. I wonder why?

Maverick · « **Reply #23 on:** February 15, 2003, 11:25:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Habu
Man I wish I was in the weapons business and you were a buyer. l I could load you up with useless toejam.

I am not in the market for a wmd. You are the one saying it's no threat based on a book from a conflict that was over80 years ago. I told ya before and won't go through the same excercise of letting you know my training is a hell of a lot more recent than WW2.

This has gotten to the stage of being pointless. You do not have anything to back your opinion and this discussion is over.

I sincerely hope you never have to deal with any WMD in any form. I also hope those with more on the ball than you, do prevent any attack by wmd anywhere.

john9001 · « **Reply #24 on:** February 15, 2003, 11:43:00 PM »

some of you people just don't get it

THE UN INSPECTORS ARE NOT SUPOSED TO LOOK FOR WEAPONS

THE UN INSPECTORS ARE SUPOSED TO VERIFY THAT THE WMD HAVE BEEN DESTROYED

saddam loves you guys , he really does

france ..."the inspectors need more time to LOOK for WMD"

it's hard to "look" with your head in the sand

Siaf__csf · « **Reply #25 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:25:20 AM »

It seems that many of you have somekind of a fake illusion that AQ and the likes really need Saddam to produce chemicals for them..

Unfortunately that's not the case. A huge variation of chemical agents suitable for an attack can be manufactured in a simple home laboratory, and this is exactly the approach AQ most likely takes.

Why deliver the stuff from Iraq when you can build it a 100 yards away from the strike point?

Hortlund · « **Reply #26 on:** February 16, 2003, 04:41:15 AM »

Well, personally I think the bio threat is worse

john9001 · « **Reply #27 on:** February 16, 2003, 09:32:30 AM »

a "simple home laboratory" blew up today in gaza, took out 3 hamas bomb makers.