I consider WMD any of a number of chemicals that might be combined to kill me. Me personally, or any member of the US military. Using Dictionary.com gives the following definition of WMD.
n : a weapon that kills or injures civilian as well as military personnel (nuclear and chemical and biological weapons) [syn: weapon of mass destruction, WMD, W.M.D.]Okay, now that we all know what we are talking about. I think that Sarin certainly qualifies, as does Mustard Gas.
We go thence to Google, and input the terms WMD found Iraq and we get some 10 million search results. Some of the better ones:
From FOX news:
Monday, May 17, 2004 Sarin Gas Shell Found•BAGHDAD, Iraq — A roadside bomb containing sarin nerve agent (search) recently exploded near a U.S. military convoy, the U.S. military said Monday.They found a shell containing Sarin. Looks like WMD to me.
This from the Washington Post:
BAGHDAD, Aug. 13 -- U.S. troops raiding a warehouse in the northern city of Mosul uncovered a suspected chemical weapons factory containing 1,500 gallons of chemicals believed destined for attacks on U.S. and Iraqi forces and civilians, military officials said Saturday.1500 gallons of precursors. Looks like WMD to me.
Monday's early morning raid found 11 precursor agents, "some of them quite dangerous by themselves," a military spokesman, Lt. Col. Steven A. Boylan, said in Baghdad.
Then the CIA final report, when admitting that no substantial quantities of WMD had been found, said:
Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War. In an insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier conventional explosives,” another addendum said.Small numbers of degraded chemical weapons. Sounds like WMD to me.
If a normal, progressive or conservative citizen found even a tablespoon of Sarin in his living room, he would immediately label it WMD. We have found small amounts of WMD in Iraq. We have found gallons of precursors in Iraq.
The question becomes; Why do we continue to report that we have found no WMD in Iraq, when all evidence is that we have in fact found them? Someone please explain that to me.
"I consider WMD any of a number of chemicals that might be combined to kill me."
ReplyDeleteWell, you can consider it that, but a WMD must have the capacity to kill (or disable) masses of people over a large area-- not just you, Pawpaw.
Plus it must be weaponized. And, preferably, a legitimate threat.
I have chemicals under my sink that could do someone harm, but that doesn't justify an invasion of my kitchen.
Oh, and your "evidence" (such that it is) is laughable. A factory established 2.5 years AFTER we deposed Saddam?
ReplyDelete"Degraded", "Ineffectual" chemical weapon leftovers from twenty years ago that hadn't been properly trashed... that's the global threat for which we went to war???
Please, paw paw... this is embarrassing. If you want to go 'round on this issue, you better bring a helluva a lot more to the table than that.
Lets not forget the caches of plutonium rods, either. Just because they weren't weapsons..YET doesn't mean diddly.
ReplyDeleteOh..and why are your comments in french?
Oyster. I realize that killing me doesn't make anything qualify as a weapon. That is why I included the standard definition. The standard definition doesn't include large areas or masses of people. It also doesn't include weaponization.
ReplyDeleteI suspect it is going to take another attack on the United States to wake up people to the fact that terrorism isn't going away. Maybe even that won't be sufficient.
Remind me that it is laughable when it is found in your backyard.
Pawpaw, methinks thou art grasping straws.
ReplyDeleteSo, according to you, the "standard" definition of WMD Weapon of Mass Destruction doesn't include destroying masses of people over large areas or weaponization.
ReplyDeleteHere's Encyclopedia Britannica's definition (summarized version):
weapon of mass destruction:
"Weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction indiscriminately and on a massive scale."
Here's how the military defines the term:
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.
No, friend. I don't get to define words. I went to Dictionary.com and typed in WMD. What I got was what I used.
ReplyDeleteSarin bombs used against military personnel simply don't count. Soldiers aren't really people, after all.
When we have to start worrying about how to define "large numbers of people", we have to worry if a hundred is a large number, or if a thousand is a large number. Maybe a hundred thousand? Why not a million?
We'll eventually get to the point where the detonation of a nuke in a city of 750,000 is just a small localized problem.
It's just not worth arguing about.
Here is a little more stuff that didnt make it into your search Papa, but you can bet that I damn well call it WMD !!
ReplyDeletefrom Steve at Hog On Ice comes this: "Okay, I cranked up Google, and what I learned is this: yellowcake is uranium oxide, U3O8, refined until it's 70% to 90% pure. Nothing enriched about it. And the 500 tons of crap found at Tuwaitha was, indeed, yellowcake.
The Front Page Magazine article linked in the above paragraph draws a distinction between yellowcake and the two tons of more-enriched uranium taken out of Tuwaitha recently."
more here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm
US reveals Iraq nuclear operation
The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.
"This operation was a major achievement," said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.
And dont forget about those bunkers full of HIGH explosives that the IAEA had seals on, that went missin !! You know, the stuff they use to detonate nukes with !!
And I have a very sneaky suspicion that there was a bunch of stuff removed or destroyed that didnt get told about too.. I have a list that I found of the WMD that was found but I caint put my fanger zactly on it right now.. Hang in there Papa..
Why didn't they find WMD's? Because they had time to move and hide them before we got there. Anyone that can't understand that, doesn't really know just what lengths the terrorists will go to accomplish the destruction of America. If the damn immigrants don't destroy us first.
ReplyDeleteKeep up the good work PawPaw...don't give the ignorant types an inch. We have enough imbeciles in the general population already.
ReplyDeleteThe truth of the matter is, you'll never get the bleeding hearts to agree to any definition that they themselves didn't invent. They will just keep defining, redefining, and manipulating language to until it only supports what their flawed emotional knee jerking opinions are.
That being said, most of those slack-jawed yokels don't even understand that an incredibly small amount of any Biological, Chemical, or Nuclear composition constitutes a Weapon of Mass Destruction. They are so ignorant of the Science, Chemistry, Biology, and Nuclear Physics behind the processes they wouldn't have a clue.
Cases in point,
We did find and confiscate duel use mobile equipment which can be used for both industrial and CBW manufacture and dispersion. It is highly unlikely a rogue regime was using such mobile equipment "In the Best Spirit of Health and Safety of its people." Considering the leader of the nation flat out stated "This is a nation of 25 million people, I only NEED 5 Million of them."
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraqi_mobile_plants/index.html
is a CIA link on the Analysis of the CBW Mobile Labs.
Degradation of chemical components does not equate to "Inert" or "Harmless." Granted their effectiveness will not be as potent as "Fresh Chemical Precursors" but at the same time, they are just as deadly and can be used in a thousand different ways for the exact same purpose as weapons grade elements. I mean come on people 20 year old degraded Chlorine Gas is actually more deadly than fresh Chlorine Gas due to the very real contaminates and oxidizers it creates in its chemical break down.
I mean seriously...You tell me, is hydrogen or sodium cyanide no longer deadly when it reaches its expected shelf life? Yes, it is still deadly, and the same goes for just about any CNS (Central Nervous System) agents. If you have 25 year old Diazinon, Malthion, and Parathion they are just as deadly as their 1 month old counterparts. Saran, VX, and the host of other nerve agents are the exact same way and so are the vast majority of all chemical weapons agents. About the only difference is the degraded chemical cocktails will, to some degree disperse more quickly in its after affects. That still don't save the folks lives who were in the immediate blast or dispersion area of them.
What about the 350 one dram vials of Ricin which have so far been found? You don't think that approximately 1.3671875 lbs of Ricin constitutes a Weapon of Mass Destruction? Well here is the math
A single granule of Ricin can kill the healthiest person on the face of the planet and there is little or no hope the poisoning process can be successfully reversed. The fact is, there is currently no vaccine or prophylactic antitoxin available, and medical treatment of exposure to this toxin is simply supportive and includes treatment for pulmonary edema. If it is ingested, gastric decontamination measures are used, however chances of recovering from it are still slim at best.
Ricin works in several ways:
1: Coetaneous and Subcutaneous: Upon Ricin entering the blood stream it directly attacks the glucose cycle of the human body and the victims blood sugar starts plummeting. It is highly unlikely that Ricin exposure it will even be discovered before the terminal point is reached in lowering the victims blood sugar. During the old USSR days, it was a favored method used for assassinating political dissidents in the old Soviet Union. It is still a favored method of disposing of dissidents throughout the world today, especially amongst rogue nations and dictatorships.
2: Inhalation and ingestion exposure: The victim will experience weakness, fever, cough and pulmonary edema occurring in about 18-24 hours after inhalation exposure, followed by severe respiratory distress and death from hypoxemia in 36-72 hours. This is primarily the route of exposure and delivery used in common chemical weapons configurations although subcutaneous exposure also occurs at the same time due to the shrapnel ejection factor of any explosive delivery system and/or IEDs.
Now, take into account that a single granule of Ricin is near microscopic in its size, one granule is about the size if a fine needle head. It is estimated that there are approximately 250 to 300 Million granules of Ricin for every one dram of it in weight. That is potentially 500 or 600 Million people DEAD from just 1 single dram vile of it. Mathematically speaking 350, one dram vials of Ricin is enough poison to outright kill 87.5 to 105 BILLION people! That is over ten fold of the current world population. If that doesn't qualify as WMD, then what the hell does?
And just think for those over bloated, overbearing, ignorant, pseudo-hippy, bleeding hearts... They're the same types of ignorant sheep who don't think 350 tiny little vials of Ricin, no larger than those tiny little bottles of smelly potpourri oil they buy at the local Yuppie Mart does not constitute proof or classification as a Weapon of Mass Destruction.
I say let's call the Bleeding Hearts what they really are... They are the WMDs of modern society...Weapons of Disinformation.
Web Sites on Ricin:
http://www.nbc-med.org/SiteContent/MedRef/OnlineRef/FieldManuals/medman/Ricin.htm
http://www.bt.cdc.gov/agent/ricin/facts.asp
http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/plants/toxicagents/ricin/ricin.html
http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic889.htm
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/ricin/index.http
That is Doctor Kamikaze Chemist to you!
Ph.D Chemical Engineering
"It is estimated that there are approximately 250 to 300 Million granules of Ricin for every one dram of it in weight."
ReplyDeleteErr..Ahh... Strike that. it should read 500 to 600 Million granules of Ricin for every one dram of it in weight.
Editor....I need my Editor!!! I'm Chemist, not an English Major...LOL!!!