Are these WMD's

[X. Benedict]

I would just like different opinions out there,

I got into a disagreement last night over which of the

following are WMD's.

 

Is Sarin Gas a WMD?

Mustard Gas?

 

Half the bar said yes, the other half said these were tactical battlefield

weapons and not WMDs.

[ExiledInIllinois]

What the heck kinda bar were you in where half the patrons responded with "tactical battlefield weapons?"

 

Notice I put the emphasis on tactical...

 

That is some colorful wording.

[Ghost of BiB]

WMD = Chemical, Biological, Nuclear and Radiological weapons and their means of delivery.

 

They can be used tactically, back in the good old days when the Soviets and us were mad at each other, that was the presumed use. There is such a thing as a tactical nuclear weapon, for that matter. That doesn't mean it's OK to have it in the neighborhood.

 

Anyway, that is actually the strict definition used by the Defense Department.

[Ghost of BiB]

What the heck kinda bar were you in where half the patrons responded with "tactical battlefield weapons?"

 

Notice I put the emphasis on tactical...

 

That is some colorful wording.  

512789[/snapback]

 

Most bars I go to, we discuss women and sports - but to each their own, I guess.

[PastaJoe]

When it comes to gas, it depends on the quantity used and the area of coverage, since it requires being in close proximity and will dissipate. When talking about WMD's, it really shouldn't be considered in the same catagory as a nuclear device for obvious reasons.

[Ghost of BiB]

When it comes to gas, it depends on the quantity used and the area of coverage, since it requires being in close proximity and will dissipate.  When talking about WMD's, it really shouldn't be considered in the same catagory as a nuclear device for obvious reasons.

512792[/snapback]

 

Actually they have to be. The definition of what a "WMD" actually is has been a big bone of contention within the government. The definition is more related to policy than chemistry. One ounce of Tabun is obviously not going to do as much harm as 100 gallons, but in terms of policy - as in who is going to be responsible within government for taking certain actions and having certain authorities, a finite definition has to be drawn. We labored long and hard to get the words "High Explosive" removed from the definition. CBRN vs CBRNE.

 

Other agencies have their own ideas, including phrases like "by order of magnitude are capable of causing mass effect...etc." Slowly, these definitions are becoming more and more standardized, which goes a surprisingly long way to helping people understand their lanes in terms of authority and responsibility.

 

The term "Weapons of Mass Effect" was floating around for a while, and included things that could interupt or destroy computer networks, for example. It's hard to devise programs under the same "roof" that are going to be fully capable of staving off an internet attack, and also conduct nuclear materials interdictions.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I would just like different opinions out there,

I got into a disagreement last night over which of the

following are WMD's.

 

Is Sarin Gas a WMD?

Mustard Gas?

 

Half the bar said yes, the other half said these were tactical battlefield

weapons and not WMDs.

512777[/snapback]

 

Yeah...what BiB said.

 

"WMD" is in itself a slippery term; it's usually used to refer to NBC (nuclear, bio, chem) weapons, but not always. "WMD" as it was applied to Iraq frequently included their ballistic rocket technology (i.e. Scuds), which are not usually grouped with NBC otherwise. Personally...I hate the term, for various reasons, mostly due to the vagueness of it.

 

But as far as I know, "tactical" vs. "strategic" doesn't really enter into the determination. Again...yeah, what BiB said. Generally, the term encompasses chemical weapons regardless of manner of use.

[X. Benedict]

Yeah...what BiB said.

 

"WMD" is in itself a slippery term; it's usually used to refer to NBC (nuclear, bio, chem) weapons, but not always.  "WMD" as it was applied to Iraq frequently included their ballistic rocket technology (i.e. Scuds), which are not usually grouped with NBC otherwise.  Personally...I hate the term, for various reasons, mostly due to the vagueness of it.

 

But as far as I know, "tactical" vs. "strategic" doesn't really enter into the determination.  Again...yeah, what BiB said.  Generally, the term encompasses chemical weapons regardless of manner of use.

512817[/snapback]

 

Actually the way you guys put it, nobody in the bar was right.

I think it started with somebody watching Fox news and

of course we all know sooooo much about this subject, that

we all went home wondering what the hell an WMD was anyway.

 

When it snows and everybody waits for the plows to clear the roads,

you can get into some pretty silly discussions. Thanks for the help.

We talk about women and sports too, but that never leads to heated discussion,

because we all seem to agree on that stuff.

[blzrul]

I'd imagine it depends on who you drop it on...and who does the dropping. One man's WMD is just a tool in another man's perfectly-justified pre-emptive strike.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I'd imagine it depends on who you drop it on...and who does the dropping.  One man's WMD is just a tool in another man's perfectly-justified pre-emptive strike. 

513136[/snapback]

 

That was my thinking. More importantly, who uses something and then wins with it.

 

Weapons of Mass Destruction in one man's hands can become Weapons of Mass Democracy in another's.

 

[Ghost of BiB]

The term "WMD" is defined as weapons--nuclear, biological, chemical and radiological-and their means of delivery 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 or to cause significant infrastructure damage

 

Pulled from something I'm working on this morning.

[KRC]

Pulled from something I'm working on this morning.

514319[/snapback]

 

So, they are sticking with the CBRN definition and adding ballistic missiles (for now)? Of course, "means of delivery" can mean more than just ballistic missiles. Hell, it could mean crop dusters.

[X. Benedict]

Pulled from something I'm working on this morning.

514319[/snapback]

 

I never knew that this was so vaguely defined. Thanks.

"Significant" must all depend on who takes notice.

That seems to be a pretty good working definition - but I can

understand C.T.M. point about the vagueness of it all.

[Ghost of BiB]

I never knew that this was so vaguely defined. Thanks.

"Significant" must all depend on who takes notice.

That seems to be a pretty good working definition - but I can

understand C.T.M. point about the vagueness of it all.

514341[/snapback]

 

But, to settle the bar discussion, any definition of "WMD" includes any chemical weapon designed as a chemical weapon - though there are several thousand people in Bhopal that might argue the point regarding certain industrial chemicals. And, BTW neither mustard or sarin are gases. They are liquids with varying degrees of volatility. They give off vapors, but are not a gas in the true sense of the word, as opposed to something like phosgene or cyanogen chloride.

[X. Benedict]

And, BTW neither mustard or sarin are gases. They are liquids with varying degrees of volatility. They give off vapors, but are not a gas in the true sense of the word, as opposed to something like phosgene or cyanogen chloride.

514356[/snapback]

I never knew any of that. I am going to have to report back to the bar on this.

Informed drunks are the heart of democracy.

 

So, inside a shell of Sarin is a juicy liquid center?

 

We have one guy insisting that they found Sarin shells in Iraq and

that that alone justifies the war because they are WMD. We have another

guy that insists that Sarin is so inefficient as a tool of mass death

other than in a confined space or room that canonballs are more of a health risk.

 

In the end, given the chance, I would want a shell of Sarin fired at me and take my chances legging it out, rather than losing a leg to a canonball. But that is just me.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

I never knew that this was so vaguely defined. Thanks.

"Significant" must all depend on who takes notice.

That seems to be a pretty good working definition - but I can

understand C.T.M. point about the vagueness of it all.

514341[/snapback]

 

And actually, by that definition and judging by the condition of lower Manhattan, 767s would be WMDs as well.

 

Like I said, "vague".

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

We have one guy insisting that they found Sarin shells in Iraq and

that that alone justifies the war because they are WMD.

 

As I recall, it was reported that a handful of old shells with CW markings were found at a depot. I assume that reported incident was not the only one (I have a vague recollection of another shell with CW markings being used in an IED, as well).

 

But the real key points were: the shells were old and largely inert (chemical weapons have a shelf life, the shells they found were well past expired). They were probably lost during the extended shell game Saddam played with inspectors: he moved lots of sh-- around trying to hide it, and misplaced some of it, accidentally and intentionally on the theory that if he didn't know where it was, the UN couldn't blame him for not reporting it.

 

We have another

guy that insists that Sarin is so inefficient as a tool of mass death

other than in a confined space or room that canonballs are  more of a health risk.

 

Clearly, he's not an Iraqi Kurd or a middle-aged Iranian male.

 

In the end, given the chance, I would want a shell of Sarin fired at me and take my chances legging it out, rather than losing a leg to a canonball. But that is just me. 

514379[/snapback]

 

I'll take the cannonball. I can live without a leg. Organophosphates, on the other hand, are nasty stuff.

[Ghost of BiB]

As I recall, it was reported that a handful of old shells with CW markings were found at a depot.  I assume that reported incident was not the only one (I have a vague recollection of another shell with CW markings being used in an IED, as well).

 

But the real key points were: the shells were old and largely inert (chemical weapons have a shelf life, the shells they found were well past expired).  They were probably lost during the extended shell game Saddam played with inspectors: he moved lots of sh-- around trying to hide it, and misplaced some of it, accidentally and intentionally on the theory that if he didn't know where it was, the UN couldn't blame him for not reporting it.

Clearly, he's not an Iraqi Kurd or a middle-aged Iranian male. 

I'll take the cannonball.  I can live without a leg.  Organophosphates, on the other hand, are nasty stuff.

514443[/snapback]

 

But among my personal favorites.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

But among my personal favorites.

514447[/snapback]

 

Then why didn't you use those on Iowa instead?

[Ghost of BiB]

Then why didn't you use those on Iowa instead?

514449[/snapback]

 

Battery sheaf and lack of inversion conditions.