Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: EdLake

No, I’m not saying that.

I’m saying it would be legitimate to reproduce what a defector has revealed were the specifications of an adversary’s latest BW. That would essential to ensure that counter-measures are effective. In some cases it might even be legtimate to make not just simulants of the new technology but actual small quantities of the real stuff.

Going beyond that and making even more sophsticated powders may be illegal under the treaty.


474 posted on 05/07/2008 7:39:44 AM PDT by TrebleRebel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 473 | View Replies ]


To: TrebleRebel
I’m saying it would be legitimate to reproduce what a defector has revealed were the specifications of an adversary’s latest BW.

But Ken Alibek's formula did NOT coat spores. So, coating spores would have nothing to do with Alibek's weapon. It's only in YOUR screwball fantasies that he glued silica onto spores with some kind of organic resin glue.

And what about your other screwball fantasy where silica was glued to spores using "polymerized glass?" Alibek's formula didn't use "polymerized glass" in any way. How do you rationalize that it would be okay to develop that kind of bioweapon without breaking the treaty?

And you never seem to answer the question: If AFIP didn't detect any "polymerized glass," and Gary Matsumoto claims there was "polymerized glass" in the Daschle anthrax, who screwed up?

Ed at www.anthraxinvestigation.com

480 posted on 05/07/2008 8:10:00 AM PDT by EdLake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 474 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson