View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Rich Ensign
Joined: 12 Sep 2004 Posts: 71
|
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a little background. We dont have Bio weapons anymore. We stopped the program,back in '69 I believe and we destroyed what stocks we had in the 70's. Bio weapons are simply to inhumane and really quite un-necessary to a nuclear power like the US.
Same,same with Chem weapons. We agreed to a UN convention to destroy our chemical weapons inventory and are ahead of schedule to get rid of them all. By 2007 we'll have destroyed our entire chemical weapon inventory and stocks. Again.............whats the point of maintaining a chemical arsenal when you have such a huge nuclear deterrant? Especially when America would consider ANY attack by ANY WMD as gorunds for nuclear retaliation. Believe me, these tyrant states have never forgotton that were the only one to have ever used nukes in anger.....................Rich _________________ "Freedom" is never "free" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
JN173 Commander
Joined: 10 May 2004 Posts: 341 Location: Anchorage, Alaska
|
Posted: Fri Oct 01, 2004 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rich wrote: | Same,same with Chem weapons. We agreed to a UN convention to destroy our chemical weapons inventory and are ahead of schedule to get rid of them all. By 2007 we'll have destroyed our entire chemical weapon inventory and stocks. .....................Rich |
Minor point, but I was under the impression that we still had CS (tear gas) which some consider a "chemical weapon". In fact I believe we have agreed not to use against combatants except to seperate them from civilians. i.e. "in stituations in which civilians are used to mask or or screen attacks". (FM27-2 Chptr 2 paragraph 38 c.) _________________ A Grunt
2/503 173rd Airborne Brigade
RVN '65-'66 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rich Ensign
Joined: 12 Sep 2004 Posts: 71
|
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
[/quote]
Minor point, but I was under the impression that we still had CS (tear gas) which some consider a "chemical weapon". In fact I believe we have agreed not to use against combatants except to seperate them from civilians. i.e. "in stituations in which civilians are used to mask or or screen attacks". (FM27-2 Chptr 2 paragraph 38 c.) [/quote]
Probably technicaly right It should also be probably noted that many countries, most of all in the MidEast, have chem/bio capabilties. I think the biggest program is in Egypt, which has used them before, against Yemeni tribesmen during a 60's bush war. They doused them with mustard. In fact since WWl the only countries to have used these terrible weapons have been muslim ones. Both Iraq and Iran used them against each other in their war, and the Egyptian usage I already mentioned, and Sudan used them against rebels during a civil war in the 90,s. In fact its widely believed the chem stocks used by them were tranfered from Iraq to avoid their destruction by UN inspectors. Iran too has been implicated in this arming of Sudan. Imagine the charming janjaweed being in possesion of chem weapons?
Now theres a pile of savages if there ever was one......................the "janjaweed"..............Rich _________________ "Freedom" is never "free" |
|
Back to top |
|
|
BigAl533 Seaman Recruit
Joined: 16 Sep 2004 Posts: 44 Location: Hudson, MI
|
Posted: Sat Oct 02, 2004 4:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Rich wrote: | Now theres a pile of savages if there ever was one......................the "janjaweed"..............Rich |
Could RoundUp be considered a chemical weapon? _________________ Hawks ruled the night - Hanoi was left defenseless..
Big Al |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Cali-HeyGirl Seaman
Joined: 11 Aug 2004 Posts: 156 Location: Mayport
|
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Iwo wrote: | The idea has merit. But we could save a lot of jet fuel by using one C-130. Next time Al-Sadr hides with his cowards in a Mosque, drop a daisy cutter on it.
The result would finally be that America would not only be hated, but would also be feared. It is likely that Mosques wouldn't be used as cover any more.
The only downside I can see is that Katie Couric and Judy Woodruff would become apoplectic. Hmmm, maybe that isn't a negative. |
Hey, count me in on this idea...
OOH-YAH! _________________ Cali-HeyGirl....proud to be a CWO5 Navy wife! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|