|
Uh-oh. Hundreds of WMDs found in Iraq | by VivianC | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
uhm they weren't functional. | by unjust | 2006-06-22 08:34:03 |
|
Not functional, but still deadly | by VivianC | 2006-06-22 08:40:59 |
|
Only deadly in the same way as a normal shell | by wwill | 2006-06-22 08:59:38 |
|
For the sake of discussion only, So under that | by Classic_Jon | 2006-06-22 10:16:17 |
|
not inert no. good greaif that's a ecipie for | by unjust | 2006-06-22 10:27:35 |
| But that proves my point exactly :) |
by Classic_Jon |
2006-06-22 10:41:38 |
The fact that there were devices that *could* be viable even in a degraded for that were not destroyed as was said dose constitute a breach of the agreement brokered by the U.N. correct?
Is it possible that the agents in those shells while degraded could still have an effect if it were used or reclaimed?
Most Laws are designed with "intent" in mind so if these were produced with the intent of being used as weapons that happened to have a mass or area effect and they were specifically forbidden to the Iraqi military by *the U.N.* does that not constitute a breach?
I guess the best way to answer your question is to define what a WMD is. That would be the best way to provide a common ground for discussion I think.
According to Wiki a WMD is "Weapons of mass destruction (WMD) generally include nuclear, biological, chemical and, increasingly, radiological weapons. The term first arose in 1937 in reference to the mass destruction of Guernica, Spain, by aerial bombardment. Following the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and progressing through the Cold War, the term came to refer more to non-conventional weapons. The terms ABC, NBC, and CBRN have been used synonymously with WMD, although nuclear weapons have the greatest capacity to cause mass destruction. The phrase entered popular usage in relation to the U.S.-led multinational forces' 2003 invasion of Iraq.
WMDs cause indiscriminate impacts, because of this fear of WMD has shaped political policies and campaigns, fostered social movements, and has been the central theme of many films. Support for different levels of WMD development and control varies nationally and internationally. Yet understanding of the nature of the threats is not high, in part because of imprecise usage of the term by politicians and the media."
Do these shells contitute a WMD by this definition? I will let you answer that by reading the article and doing some searching of your own and see what you turn up. :) |
|
[ Reply ] |
|
sort of. | by unjust | 2006-06-22 11:38:26 |
|
To go along with your line of reasoning | by Classic_Jon | 2006-06-22 12:05:54 |
|
i think you're looking for any excuse now | by unjust | 2006-06-22 12:15:33 |
|
You misread my intent. I never said stockpile | by Classic_Jon | 2006-06-22 12:48:05 |
|
that's fair | by unjust | 2006-06-22 12:54:28 |
|
I will agree the proof he knew is sticky...esp | by Classic_Jon | 2006-06-22 13:05:52 |
|
Conventional weapons are easy | by DesertRat66 | 2006-06-22 12:32:50 |
|
yes, but how were those ordnances stored? | by unjust | 2006-06-22 12:56:19 |
|
They are still not letting people in some bunkers | by Classic_Jon | 2006-06-22 13:04:14 |
|
which we both agree on | by unjust | 2006-06-22 13:17:12 |
|
Not sure but I know how Iraqi weapons were | by DesertRat66 | 2006-11-19 12:55:59 |
|
These WWI bombs/shells etc. still explode. | by Sharku | 2006-06-22 13:57:14 |
|
exactly. theyr'e dangerou, but no | by unjust | 2006-06-22 14:02:03 |
|
Still a long ways from... | by Sharku | 2006-06-22 15:05:23 |
