UN Inspectors Find Empty Chemical Warheads - Page 3

Jaakko · January 17, 2003, 12:57

Y'know, this latest exchange is a good example why I prefer not to post too much on Poly anymore. It's become the main office of Trolls R Us.

TCO · January 17, 2003, 12:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

It was a counter troll, no less and no more. But it contains a grain of truth, considering the breathtaking speed your president turns his last allies in enemies and raises anti-americanism everywhere. This generation has nothing to fear, but if your country continues with its present foreign policy, the next generation will see the US being hated throughout the world. That is not a nice feeling, I assure you. I know it, I'm a German.

Cry me a river, Hun. You needed to be smacked down...and we were happy to do it.

TCO · January 17, 2003, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

Now, SR, despite being trolled first, that was a nasty thing to say.

-Arrian

I think I hit a lot harder and more below the belt than he did. Just want to show skull-head that I can fight meaner and dirtier than him.

lightblue · January 17, 2003, 13:10

Ebola is bad, but as has been said is in general not airborne. If someone sequences the Reston and the Zaire strains, finds out the genetic differences between them, then compares the predictive genes/transmembrane region etc. Then start mixing and matching genes and testing on monkeys/humans (for the unscrupulous dictator). It is fairly tricky no doubt (especially in a Cat4 suit, I did some work in a Cat3 and it was right royal pain the arse), but if you don't really care if your researchers get infected too, it is possible, especially for a fairly small virus like Ebola.

I still think that weaponised smallpox would be worse than Ebola.

Jaakko · January 17, 2003, 13:10

GP - It's like you just saw someone pissing on the sidewalk, and in return you take a crap on that same sidewalk. Us onlookers and passersby would prefer you made your point in some other way.

lightblue · January 17, 2003, 13:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaakko
GP - It's like you just saw someone pissing on the sidewalk, and in return you take a crap on that same sidewalk. Us onlookers and passersby would prefer you made your point in some other way.

I like trolls, it makes Poly OT what it is

Jaakko · January 17, 2003, 13:14

Looney bin? Moron depository?

lightblue · January 17, 2003, 13:16

Something along those lines, yeah. Always good for a laugh as long as you pick the right thread (anything US vs EU is good, as are the threads started by the notorious trolls).

Urban Ranger · January 17, 2003, 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
I am from Reston. I have read THE HOT ZONE several times and have talked to CDC epidemiologists about it.

I myself will be a bit skeptical as quoting a popular book as evidence, particularly when the author is not an expert in the field.

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
3. The Hot Zone book discusses one experience of airborne transmission of Zaire prior to Reston. In monkeys. But it also discusses several times when the disease was NOT transmitted by air. Including one where a doctor worked in intimate contact with fluids of Ebola victims and was not infected. It appears that there is some variability of Zaire. Or at lest we don't really know the whole story on it.

Here's what the CDC says on the matter:

Quote:

While all Ebola virus species have displayed the ability to be spread through airborne particles (aerosols) under research conditions, this type of spread has not been documented among humans in a real-world setting, such as a hospital or household.

Urban Ranger · January 17, 2003, 13:21

Quote:

Originally posted by GP
Read THE COBRA EVENT. The book was written in 1998 and is almost eery in its predictions. Prior to 911, you could say that Preston was exaggerating. After the anthrax episodes and such the fictional book seems less implausible.

What does that have to do with the genetics of a virus?

Urban Ranger · January 17, 2003, 13:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaakko
Y'know, this latest exchange is a good example why I prefer not to post too much on Poly anymore. It's become the main office of Trolls R Us.

Your avatar looks pretty messed up.

Anyway, trolls have always been around, you can't avoid them. I reckon it would be best just to laugh at them.

TCO · January 17, 2003, 13:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaakko
GP - It's like you just saw someone pissing on the sidewalk, and in return you take a crap on that same sidewalk. Us onlookers and passersby would prefer you made your point in some other way.

ok.

TCO · January 17, 2003, 13:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

What does that have to do with the genetics of a virus?

Umm...don't get all berz on me.

Short anwer, not much. It's more about the scenario of a modified virus. How feasible to do and the effects with releasing it. It's fiction, so it's not like reading an essay. But it will have a few interesting things that make you think.

BTW, to the other dudes point. The disease that the author used was weaponized smallpox.

TCO · January 17, 2003, 13:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

I myself will be a bit skeptical as quoting a popular book as evidence, particularly when the author is not an expert in the field.

Granted. I guess we could read the peer-reviewd literature. There should be some info about Reston in there.

Here's what the CDC says on the matter:

[/QUOTE]

agreed. Although, Reston certainly may have been airborne in its spread. We don't know. The keepers could have also gotten monkey bites. (But its not a hospital and not controlled anyway.) And my example with monkey airborne transmission WAS in a lab. But was not humans, obviously.

Arrian · January 17, 2003, 14:50

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

I think I hit a lot harder and more below the belt than he did. Just want to show skull-head that I can fight meaner and dirtier than him.

Ah, so you were going for overkill. I thought so. But it was ugly. Quite similar to a pile of dogshit on the sidewalk, actually.

-Arrian

optimus2861 · January 17, 2003, 15:42

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnT
Optimus: read up on WW1 for further clarification.

You mean this?

Quote:

Although gas claimed a notable number of casualties during its early use, once the crucial element of surprise had been lost the overall number of casualties quickly diminished. Indeed, deaths from gas after about May 1915 were relatively rare.

It has been estimated that among British forces the number of gas casualties from May 1915 amounted to some 9 per cent of the total - but that of this total only around 3% were fatal. Even so, gas victims often led highly debilitating lives thereafter with many unable to seek employment once they were discharged from the army.

In large part this was because of the increasing effectiveness of the methods used to protect against poison gas. Gas never turned out to be the weapon that turned the tide of the war, as was often predicted. Innovations in its use were quickly combated and copied by opposing armies in an ongoing cycle.

Only the Russians suffered a substantial amount of fatalities from gas attacks (56,000); no other nation lost so much as 10,000 dead. Contrast that with approximately 1.7 million total Russian deaths in the war, and I think you can see where my skepticism comes from.

Chemical weapons might make for effective terror weapons (but, again, you've got to get proper delivery), but are nowhere near as effective military weapons as their conventional counterparts.

EDIT: Also, consider the high density of troops in the trenches in World War I, compared to modern conflicts where forces are more dispersed. Chemical weapons would be nowhere as effective today, even as they were back then, in a military sense. And -- bullets are cheaper.

Az · January 17, 2003, 16:18

Then they used Clorine gas, and not VX, mind you.

MichaeltheGreat · January 17, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by optimus2861
^^ Something I've been pondering as well. Chemical weapons are so reliant upon proper dispersion in order to be effective -- wind, temperature, pressure, etc etc -- that to lump them in as a "weapon of mass destruction" with nukes (which are in a class of their own, no question) and biological agents (which share many of the same dispersion problems as chemicals, however can somewhat make up for it if they are infectious agents) has always puzzled me.

There's several issues with chemical weapons. They are dependent on weather conditions for ideal dispersion, but VX is pretty damned effective whether it's ideally dispersed or not.

The classification of CW agents as WMD's is a correct one, since they can have extensive, severe and permanent health impacts well outside their lethal radius, and the hazard potential persists (with V-series many nerve agents such as VX) long after a direct attack.

Another reason for classification of CW agents as WMD's is that many of them are engineered to have adhesive qualities in liquid form, causing a thin film of the agent to stick to whatever it comes in contact with, then slowly evaporating off. This makes after-attack lethal potential much higher, and requires proper decontamination of all equipment, building surfaces, clothing, supplies, etc. in the area attacked.

Yet another reason is the overwhelming mass casualty potential: VX, for example, has an LD₅₀ of about 10mg in liquid form. (meaning that it has a 50% probability of being lethal), and a much lower dosage would be lethal in gaseous form. This is thousands of times higher than any lethality from conventional missile or artillery rounds. Gaseous VX casualties can only be treated by injection of atropine directly into the heart (atropine itself is toxic and has long-term health problems, but it's far better than the alternative), within one to two minutes of exposure. This means that the vast majority of people exposed can not be treated at all before they die, even with atropine and trained personnel available - the specialized nature of the immediate treatment, along with the need for medics to be in protective suits, severely limits how many people could be reached and treated in time by a properly equipped medic. VX is the worst of the nerve agents, but older, less lethal agents don't give you a lot more slack.

BTW, lethality potential of a 130 or 152 mm arty round with even low-level nerve agents like GA or GB is from a few dozen to a few hundred times higher than a conventional munition, even with less than ideal dispersion. In both cases, it depends on the nature of the targets and density of personnel under the target area, but the Iraqis don't use airburst submunitions, so a ground impact 130 or 152 has a definite maximum potential lethal area (very small against buttoned mechanized forces), and a pretty good potential for inflicting zero fatalities. The GA or GB variant also could potentially have zero direct effect, but it would force all troops in a wide area to go to protective suits, decontamination procedures, etc. - this reduction in combat effectiveness (plus an incidental increase in heat related casualties and heat-fatigue related human error) would have a severe effect on movement, dispersal of forces, etc.

MichaeltheGreat · January 17, 2003, 17:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
But again, so what? They weren't being used for anything. They were disused, sitting in crates covered in dust and bird poop. Oh, the horrors!!!

And they could be filled and transferred to field units in less than 24 hours.

DinoDoc · January 17, 2003, 17:28

Isn't it a violation of the ceasefire resolution for them to have these shells at all regardless of thier contents or lack there of?

MRT144 · January 17, 2003, 17:30

of course MtG this just falls in line with the Administrations "could happen" justifcation of war with iraq.

Willem · January 17, 2003, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Still nothing. While the US keeps saying they do have WoMD (I'm getting tired of that phrase). That might be true but it seems to be the time to prove it in some way. Otherwise people on the street will start getting arrested by the police because they can't prove that they haven't done anyting illegal.

I'm starting to get a kick out of Bush's continual insistence that Iraq needs to disarm, even though there's no proof that he even has anything. Now we have Rumsfeld saying that if the inspectors don't find anything, that's just proof that Saddam is playing cat and mouse. They're twisting everything to suit their own purpose.

DinoDoc · January 17, 2003, 17:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
even though there's no proof that he even has anything.

Iraq could help thier case if they actually a) cooperated with the inspectors and b) verifiably accounted for a large stock of weapons they have yet to provide any real explaination for.

Willem · January 17, 2003, 17:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Bushie-boy made a threatening speech about leading a coalition of volunter countries against Iraq. It seems weak. After all, if the US or any other country with a sizable military would be forced to do the same list I would think that eleven 'forgotten' and empty 120mm shells is within the margin of error.

What volunteer countries? Even Blair is backing down and saying any action must be handled through the UN. And just recently the Canadian Prime Minister said the same thing. He won't find a single country willing to support him in a unilateral invasion.

And I just read at CNN that the majority of Americans now support action only with the UN. If he attacked now, he'd be commiting political suicide.

Willem · January 17, 2003, 17:45

Quote:

Originally posted by GP

Does that mean it's a lie?

I think the whole world knows that Saddam is a liar. But whether or not he's an actual threat is a different story.

TCO · January 17, 2003, 17:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

I think the whole world knows that Saddam is a liar. But whether or not he's an actual threat is a different story.

Blinx is the same idiot who allowed the Iraqis to have enough weapons grade uranium to make a bomb as long as the kept it seperated. they kept it in 3 facilities a mile apart. And 6 months before the last war, put it all together and went on a crash program to get a bomb.

Kropotkin · January 17, 2003, 17:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem
What volunteer countries?

I don't know. His words, not mine. Your guess is as good as mine I suppose.

Kropotkin · January 17, 2003, 17:50

And GP, it's Blix, not Blinx

TCO · January 17, 2003, 17:52

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
And GP, it's Blix, not Blinx

Freudian slip.

MichaeltheGreat · January 17, 2003, 17:53

Quote:

Originally posted by MRT144
of course MtG this just falls in line with the Administrations "could happen" justifcation of war with iraq.

I'm not a big fan of invading Iraq and imposing regime change under the present circumstances (inadequate arab world support and clear casus belli), but I don't doubt that Saddam has hidden capabilities - maybe dormant for a year or two, and well hidden in anticipation of allowing a resumption of inspectors.

Hans Blix has already said he has issues with the completeness and veracity of the December 7 report on Iraq's weapons programs, and the fact no hard evidence has been found doesn't mean much - it's several dozen inspectors for a few weeks in a huge country, trying to find evidence the Iraqis had plenty of time to bury away.

Saddam is a problem, and the world's better off without him, but I don't think the case has yet been made adequately, and I don't think there's a clearly thought out approach (with regional support) to what to do with a post-Saddam Iraq.