|
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 |
|
sort of. | by unjust | 2006-06-22 11:38:26 |
|
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 |
|
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 |
...an "ordinary" environmental hazard. In that regard, I think your car-wreck analogy is flawed. Take a tank, remove all weaponry from it, and while it can no longer shoot, it can still flatten your house by just running through it. Still a lot more dangerous than the hollowed out piece of metal you'll see at a museum, and while not nearly as effective as it used to be, you can still use it for its intended purpose: namely to kill and destroy. Same goes for these Iraqi shells, or the WWI shells.
Again, I don't consider this find to be the smoking gun VivianC thinks it is, or a reason to go to war over, but I wouldn't minimalize it to environmental pollution either. |
|
[ Reply ] |
