U.S. troops find chemical weapon in Tal Afar stronghold

Stars & Stripes ^ | 15 Sep 05 | Jeff Schogal

[mother22wife21]

McMasters sums things up quite nicely.

[xzins]

To gain the designation "WMD" there must be a potential for great lethality.

Exploding a box of Tide probably won't qualify.

Exploding a vial of Sarin will.

[Cheburashka]

I presume the parents were killed by the blast. Do you know anything different?

[topher]

Note that Star and Stripes refer to them as terrorists.

Thank God that Star and Stripes is not infected with the disease of the MSM... Maybe Dan Rather's typewriter was destroyed in the raid...

[cgk]

Well, I suppose I have several definitions of WMDs. Lately, none of them seem to be the same as those used by the MSM - or for that matter the several definitions used on FreeRepublic.

I also have articles upon articles indexed of real-live WMDs found IN Iraq - even reported by MSM, but which have since fallen off the radar. But again we come back to "What makes a WMD a WMD?" Some say anthrax isn't a WMD.

I said the word "WMD" in a ping to someone on the previous Tal Afar thread and was blasted out of my socks.

For awhile there, WMD articles were taken seriously, then they weren't any more. Then even when the serious articles came out, people dismissed them. It's what we've come to expect: lots of false positives or buried stories neither proven nor disproven beyond the first recognition of an "agent".

I just agree that most WMDs are correctly described in many definitions as "non-conventional weapons" whether or not they kill 2 or 2000.

[Wombat101]

The definition of a chemical weapon as a WMD has more to do with their past military use (and political considerations)than it does with their destructive power. During the First World War, millions of soldiers on both sides were horribly killed and the survivors scarred for life, by chemical weapons, causing a revulsion in European armies and nations that is still being felt today.

The purpose of a chemical weapon, as described by another poster, is not strictly to deny the enemy freedom of movement (although they can be used that way) but instead to present the enemy with thousands of incapacitated soldiers, all incapacitated at roughly the same time. The results are holes in your front lines caused by incapacitated soldiers, incitment to panic and having your rear areas and transportation facilities overwhelmed by wounded men, many of whom will require intense efforts to save them if they are to survive. In this sense, a chemical weapon is not merely a weapon of attack but a shock weapon; one that is intended to sap an enemy's morale and will to fight. In terms of effects, due to climate, weather, winds, and protective measures, chemical weapons are not the weapon of first choice on the battlefield. The effects are too localized and just as dangerous to the attacker as they are to the victim. Never mind the production, transport and handling difficulties in a battlefield enviornment.

As to why a chemical weapon is classified as a WMD, if I'm not mistaken, that has more to do with the various Geneva Conventions and U.N. Resolutions on these matters than anything else. Apparently, the more horrid a weapon is to a European's sensibility the more it's use should be proscribed. Strictly speaking in strictly military sense, these are weapons that are very often not worth the effort put into them in terms of results. However, they are no more insidious than the land mine (the other Euro-leftist bugaboo).

[Max in Utah]

Hi, I'm a student in Dublin writing a paper on WMD and the occupation of Iraq in general. Something I'm supposed to address is the difference between chemical weapons being WMD and things like cluster bombs or 'daisy cutter' bombs. Not sure if this is the right place to ask but I'm posting anywhere I can find. Thanks for your time. Niall.

Chemical weapons: use in war is prohibited by Geneva Convention.

Cluster bombs, "Daisy Cutters": sometimes referred to as "area weapons;" not prohibited by international agreement.

[Eagle Eye]

There is a technical distinction between chemical WMDs and chemical TICs. It's mostly semantics because the end result is the same. But TICs are not WMDs.

[Cheburashka]

It was a setup. It didn't work.

[John D]

It's all Bush's fault. He knew they had chemical weapons and did nothing to protect our troops.

[sheltonmac]

A large quantity of something like VX delivered over an urban area (think a couple of oildrums worth detonated in a high-rise downwind of the centre) could indeed cause mass casualties.

The same could be said of virtually any toxic substance. The point that needs to be made is that it is a combination of certain factors (substance, quantity, delivery method, etc.) that determines whether or not something can be classified as a WMD. For example, uranium isn't a WMD, but use enough of it along with other materials and the right kind of delivery method and you have yourself a nuclear weapon.

What's described in the article can hardly be considered a "weapon of mass destruction."

[30 something american]

You a Dylan fan too...?

TS

[cgk]

The cutoff is determined by potential and not by actual.

Now that I agree with 100%. They are psychological weapons most assuredly.

[Stonewall Jackson]

I'm sure he's just crying in his beer.

[elhombrelibre]

The quote is from a Bob Dylan song.

[Eagle Eye]

Chlorine and ammonia can be extremely lethal separately or mixed together yet they aren't WMDs. Rather, they are TICs--Toxic Industrial Chemicals-- that can be formally or informally weaponized.

Sarin, otoh, has no industrial purpose. They don't make bugs big enough for that type of organophosphate insecticide.

So toxiicity alone isn't what determines status as WMD.

[sheltonmac]

To gain the designation "WMD" there must be a potential for great lethality.

Yes, but sarin by itself isn't a WMD. You'd need the appropriate quantity along with the proper delivery method. If we're just talking about "potential," then anything can be considered a WMD because anything can be lethal when you have the appropriate quantity along with the proper delivery method.

[AD from SpringBay]

I'll take, "News that will Never be on tha tee vee for $2,000, Alex."

[Wombat101]

RE: the differnce between WMDs and conventional explosives.

Daisy Cutters, cluster bombs,land mines and deep penetrators are what are known in the trade as "area denial munitions". Their purpose is to present an enemy with an obstacle and thus slow his movement or to deny him the use of an area (airstrips, bridges, open fields, road junctions, etc.). In these cases, an enemy will have to expend time and effort to either clear the area for the passage of his troops and supplies or make efforts to repair the damage to infrastructure caused by them. By all the "rules of warfare" these are considered legal actions. The main ingredients for these weapons are all conventionally-produced explosives, not radiological and bacterium-based substances.

The purpose of a WMD is to present an enemy with an attack of overwhelming force and shock for which there is no immediate response. So, gassing his front lines, nuking his cities and spreading the plague in his rear areas are considered legal no-no's by the laws of war, because they contravene our Western ideas of "fairness" when used against us, but we also have no prohibition (except by international law)when used against an enemy (re: Atomic bombing of Japan, for example).

In the case of the Atom bomb, however, it must be pointed out that the Japanese had proven to be an intractable enemy and depending on your point of view, only a weapon to which they could not respond was the only way to end the war. In fact, it was widely believed that the bomb might not even work at all, despite the successful Trinity test. That's a debate for another thread, though.

[cgk]

My sincere apologies for my tagline in #53. All I can say is typing, talking on the phone and playing with a 3 year old all at once are not conducive (sp?) to also editing a tagline on FR

It has since been corrected.