IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Using same logic, what about bio/chem weapons?
Yet we are about to attack a country with those... Even easier (at least equally) to sneak out of the country and inflict damage. Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New I'd dispute that getting bio/chem weapons are easier to get
out. Bio weapons maybe, chem weapons no way. You need a lot of chem stuff to make an effective WMD; a few cups aren't going to do it, and handling it is always dangerous. Bio weapons can be small, but if you really want to go large you need quite a bit (anthraxing New York would require hundreds of pounds of the stuff if you wanted to really Get It Right). A nuke can be very small, and with adequate shielding very difficult to detect. Also, you can use a nuke as a football (well, only if you like broken toes maybe;) when it's not armed with no fear that you're going to bake yourself into the earth. That's definitely not true for chem/bio weapons.

It's even easier if you can infiltrate a medical equipment company that deals with radiology; they're allowed to transport radioactive material.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Bio/Chem won't have the same impact as nukes.
Really, chem is hard to disperse over a large area and still be effective. You might get a subway car or two with chemical weapons, or maybe a block or two of people on their way home.

Bio's a little bit more insidous, but it's still counterable at some level via antibiotics, vaccines, and isolation of the infected populations.

Nukes, OTOH, leave a crater about a half-mile across, and one in a major city, well, let's just say the insurance underwriters wouldn't be too happy about that.

Not to mention the 1+ million people that got incinerated inside of 5 seconds. Nope, none of them are going to be much of anything any more, other than dust.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
New Basically agree with you and Jake except
our water supplies are extremely vulnerable to chem/bio. Wide dispersion, etc... and no need to transport arsenic and other "homegrown" chems. Just need to find an entry point a few hundred feet "south" of the water main coming from the water works...

OTOH, the premise that I was getting at, that countries with small nuclear arsenals would deter us, I believe speculative at best. My thinking is that we would want to go after countries with small arsenals before they developed large arsenals. :-) Of course, I'm sure I'm wrong...
Just a few thoughts,

Screamer


Living is easy with eyes closed
misunderstanding all you see,
it's getting hard to be someone but it all works out
it doesn't matter much to me


J. Lennon - Strawberry Fields Forever
New Re: Basically agree with you and Jake except
our water supplies are extremely vulnerable to chem/bio. Wide dispersion, etc... and no need to transport arsenic and other "homegrown" chems. Just need to find an entry point a few hundred feet "south" of the water main coming from the water works...
\r\n\r\n

Well, homegrown chems would exclude the need to export the chemical weapons in question. Homegrown bio weapons (you can get anthrax from almost anywhere by going out and digging it up; you just need some knowledge) excludes the need to export biological agents too.

\r\n\r\n

In short, the real problem for the US is a domestic one, not an overseas one.

\r\n\r\n
OTOH, the premise that I was getting at, that countries with small nuclear arsenals would deter us, I believe speculative at best. My thinking is that we would want to go after countries with small arsenals before they developed large arsenals. :-) Of course, I'm sure I'm wrong...
\r\n\r\n

I'm not. However, Iran need not target the US to make the US think twice, they need only target the oil ports, pipelines, and capitals of allies... it's the destruction of Japan and S. Korea that N. Korea is holding over the US, not the destruction of the US itself. NB- their ICBM capability is as yet untested; they don't really have it yet.

\r\n
--\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\r\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\r\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\r\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\r\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
     interesting "Fresh Air" today - (rcareaga) - (32)
         Um... - (ben_tilly) - (31)
             Re: Um... - (rcareaga) - (29)
                 Very telling... - (screamer) - (28)
                     Your logic is wrong - (ben_tilly)
                     Re: Very telling... - (rcareaga) - (26)
                         Carrying this a bit further... - (screamer) - (25)
                             you're assuming *way* too much - (rcareaga) - (13)
                                 Very fair assessment... - (screamer) - (3)
                                     Eschewing obfuscation, then_____ 'Democrats' indeed! - (Ashton) - (2)
                                         Mou droog, I respectfully disagree... - (screamer) - (1)
                                             In simplest terms then - bringing this 'off' - (Ashton)
                                 Been down this slippery track with this person before - (dmarker) - (8)
                                     Add one more thing, Dougie... - (screamer) - (7)
                                         He HAD answered that, even BEFORE you asked! - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                             Avoiding the flames forum... - (screamer)
                                         Re: Add one more thing, Dougie... - (rcareaga) - (4)
                                             he's not a "seasoned brawler" Thor God of Flaming thunder! -NT - (boxley)
                                             Let's start again then. - (screamer)
                                             P.S. Dimestore words like interlocutors... - (screamer) - (1)
                                                 Well, when correctly spelled, then - - (Ashton)
                             Why the US won't attack countries with nukes - (ben_tilly) - (10)
                                 Re: Why the US won't attack countries with nukes - (deSitter) - (3)
                                     Conventional Western Wisdom holds... - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                         US current global strategy has China already contained ... - (dmarker)
                                     Digression -- Khrushchev - (rcareaga)
                                 Using same logic, what about bio/chem weapons? - (screamer) - (4)
                                     I'd dispute that getting bio/chem weapons are easier to get - (jake123)
                                     Bio/Chem won't have the same impact as nukes. - (inthane-chan) - (2)
                                         Basically agree with you and Jake except - (screamer) - (1)
                                             Re: Basically agree with you and Jake except - (jake123)
                                 'Immanent' - a Jungian typo ? ;-) - (Ashton)
             There was a piece on BBC World Service a day or two ago - (jake123)

Di people dem a beg di super DJ fi more. Because dem love di way wi play di hardcore.
61 ms