Chemical weapons

[Animal]

Originally posted by johnny: quote: Originally posted by Animal: quote: Originally posted by johnny: Well, it's still not comparable with agents imho. Sure, it's a horrible tool, but so is a daisy cutter, or even a Bouncing Betty. War is no picknick.

Chemical and biological weapons are banned because of the horror caused by their usage. Napalm's cost on humanity is no different than any other chemical weapon, imho. [/QUOTE]Well, let's ban the entire militairy and everything involved then. [/QUOTE]Killing someone in war is one thing, making them suffer while killing them is completely different. If Saddam had used napalm, I'm willing to bet there would be a much bigger fuss.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: As for the Napalm, do we really consider it a "chemical weapon." I mean, if that's the case, then isn't EVERY weapon a "chemical weapon?" Where do we draw the line?

Napalm is not considered a chemical weapon, but only because the US deems it fit not to. Irregardless of whether it's classified as chemical, biological, or conventional the damage and horror that it causes is very real and inhumane.

You can call a dog a cat, but at the end of the day it's still a dog.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Animal: If Saddam had used napalm, I'm willing to bet there would be a much bigger fuss.

Would there? Why didn't he use it, in fact? I mean, IIRC the Anarchist's cookbook reveals that gasoline + laundry detergent basically = napalm.

[Animal]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Animal: If Saddam had used napalm, I'm willing to bet there would be a much bigger fuss.

Would there? Why didn't he use it, in fact? I mean, IIRC the Anarchist's cookbook reveals that gasoline + laundry detergent basically = napalm. [/QUOTE]Since I wasn't there, I'm not sure why Saddam didn't use it but I'll take a guess: He didn't have any WoMD?

Napalm is a jellied gasoline and the modern day version is made up of polystyrene (46 parts), gasoline (33 parts) and benzene (21 parts). Even if Saddam could make it, he still had no delivery agent. A napalm grenade perhaps?

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Animal: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by Animal: If Saddam had used napalm, I'm willing to bet there would be a much bigger fuss.

Would there? Why didn't he use it, in fact? I mean, IIRC the Anarchist's cookbook reveals that gasoline + laundry detergent basically = napalm. [/QUOTE]Since I wasn't there, I'm not sure why Saddam didn't use it but I'll take a guess: He didn't have any WoMD?

Napalm is a jellied gasoline and the modern day version is made up of polystyrene (46 parts), gasoline (33 parts) and benzene (21 parts). Even if Saddam could make it, he still had no delivery agent. A napalm grenade perhaps? [/QUOTE]My point exactly. Grounded planes = no use for Napalm.

[Faceman]

war = no rules "all is fair in love and war"

Basically you are right if you argue: "Why does it matter HOW a person dies in war?"

BUT

Classic War like Szun Tsu, Wallenstein or Clausewitz knew it has been abolished in the 20th century. since the mid 1920ies war was officially outlawed internationally (Briand-Kellog pact).
Wars that are fought by NATO or the US today always have a touch of a police matter. And for that there must be rules because it DOES matter if you cuff a culprit or if you maim and gut him (= if you strike strategic military points or if you carpet bomb cities).
According to International treaties everybody who starts an aggressive war is violating International law (like Saddam in Kuwait) ergo he is a war criminal.
But say he can come up with a good excuse for why he invaded the country (say: "They were hiding Osama and they're all bloody terrorists anyway) he may get away with it BUT he may not use excessive force (ABC weapons, 1000+ m/s bullets, ...) in what he tries to rectify as a police operation.

[ 08-11-2003, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[Animal]

We know he couldn't, but I was suggesting that if he had, do you think everyone would be so aloof? I think not. Had Saddam used napalm, or something with similiar destructive capabilities, the consensus on it's usage would be a lot different, but since it was the US who used it, everything's good right?

I find it hypocritical to invade a country on the pretense of removing horrofic weapons while using the very same weapons to do so.

[Faceman]

here's a completely fictional dialogue between two USAM strategists
but I just figure that it could have (I DON'T say it has) been that way

A: Now, let's face it. We lost that Vietnam war only because a bunch of Hippies could not stand watching that girl burning alive.
B: Now what do we do?
A: We could stop napalming villages.
B: OR we could just censor the news media!
A: Great idea, let's do THAT.

the outcry about inappropriate use of force of the US military is far bigger in Europe because we have less biased news reports and even bigger in Arab countries because they have reversely biased news reports. Most people will believe what their television set tells them. And if Al-Jazeera tells them that the evil US has just bombed 3 Aspirin factories with 2000 child workers under age 8 inside they will root for Saddam while if FOX tells them that these factories were actually nuclear laser beam anti-aircraft bases and that they had to drop the H-bomb to counter their fission with our fusion* they will root for Dubya.


*I am well aware that scientifically speaking this is a load of a bull's final metabolic product.

[ 08-11-2003, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, if my hands are "muddy as the rest" just because I continue to live my life, then you've created a tall order for your general populace. One that requires those on any side of an issue shut out life, march against the establishment, and refuse to buy anything -- in the modern day USA, resulting in death of course. It is an order you cannot and do not live up to.

And your point is...?

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally posted by Skunk: The message being sent around the world is clear - WMD's and chemical weapons are legitimate in war - if the US ever attacks you it will have no hesitation using them first - so you better make sure that you develop your own stocks of the stuff.

WRONG!
Our policy is very clear. The forces of The United States of America have the the policy to: Strike with mass precision and destruction of the enemy with all conventional munitions, and has reserved the right to first strike with munitions of nuclear capabilty.

We refrain from the right of first strike with unconventional munitions; chemical, and biological. If our forces are attacked first by means of unconventional munitions, we have the right to a retaliatory strike of unconventional munitions to include chemical, however, we will refrain from the use of biological munitions due to an uncontrolled release that could cause harm to both civilian and natural resources.

However YOU want to THINK about Mark 77 version 5 incendiary munitions, it is type classified as conventional munition. It can be dropped on target, with no threat of a down wind or local hazard (outside of blast effect) to any unprotected forces or civilians. Has no long term affect at the drop site, and is safe for friendly forces to move through once the munition has expired.
The psychological affect that it produces could be part of a "shock and awe" campaign.

Felix