# Chemical Weapons found in Iraq.... **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2005, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287 "2005-11-16T08:50:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287/121 "2005-11-27T03:29:16Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Why you felt it was necessary to make this pre-emptive _ad hominem_ escapes me. Your points are well made, and are well taken, despite the entirely gratuitous insult. Perhaps “baby killer” was over the top, but your prior misrepresenation of my arguments led me to believe you wouldn’t take them seriously in any case. Reference: > [@elucidator in response to Ravenman](#): > > Yeah, that must be it! They were firing the WP rounds of artillery in “safe” mode, to alert the civilians that they were in a dangerous area! Then, while we blow up all their houses killing the bad guys, they can be gathering flowers to strew in our path! > > Its all so simple, when you look at it the right way! You seemed to go out of your way to avoid commenting on the substance of my post, and instead belittling a perfectly valid point as having come from some Cheney-esque source (which I most certainly am not). I naturally thought that the substance of any further posts I made would be equally ignored. I am apparently correct. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287/122 "2005-11-27T04:15:47Z")
Oh, Lord love a duck! Your comment was silly. I mocked it. It deserved mockery. The WP rounds were not fired with the direct intention to kill, only as a prelude to rendering people into hamburger jello with HE. Therefore, the WP rounds are little more than a pyrotechnic display? If I make you coffee and dump in a couple teaspoons of rat poison, would you claim that the coffee was made without lethal intent? Whoya kidding? ---
**Author:** ![ImaginalDisc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a88e57/32.png) [@ImaginalDisc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ImaginalDisc)\ **Post date:** [November 27, 2005, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287/123 "2005-11-27T04:28:01Z")
I’ve been following this thread, and my background is as a biology student, not military science. So, perhaps I’m misunderstanding the meaning of the words “chemical” and “chemical weapon”. Bullet are chemicals, metal alloys to be more specific, but they do not injure as a result of their chemical properties. They injure because they hit people at high velocity. Grenades explode, but the main purpose of fragmentary grenades to to hit people with shrapnel. There are high explosive which are designed to hit people with heat, from exothermic chemical reactions, as well as the shock wave, depending on the explosives brissance. Am I right so far? Here’s where I’m confused. Burning someone alive is most definately a chemical reaction, but I take it that it doesn’t count as a “chemical weapon”? If we soak people in Napalm and light them up, the napalm sticks to them, thanks to it chemical properties, and burns them, again, thanks to it chemical properties. Are these “chemical” weapons? I don’t know about you, but I’d be more terrified about being burned alive by white phosphorous, than dying by inhaling too much chlroine gas. The earlier cites about chemical weapon treaties and regulations don’t sound like they were written by applied chemists, they sound like they were written by people who, let me be generous, had a special working meaning of the word “chemical”. So, what’s the word? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287/124 "2005-11-28T01:09:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > You exhibit a very selective sense of propriety. I certainly did not hijack this conversation all by myself, yet I am the only one you feel compelled to rebuke. Nope, I “rebuked” **Pjen** , who hijacked his own thread with the usual broken record about "the US is losing the war/Moral High Ground™. It got pretty much back on track, then you lumbered in to [try to derail it again.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6831545&postcount=80) > [@](#): > > The OP, the much belabored **pjen** , doesn’t seem to care much. Of course. You’re playing his song. > [@](#): > > A less generous man than myself might suspect that your ire is more about how well I argue than what I argue about. Oh, I see - I’m ticked off by the brilliance of your arguments. :dubious: It’s intriguing how you can raise fatuousness to the status of an art form. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287/125 "2005-11-28T01:35:06Z")
Awww, bless his heart, he means well. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287/126 "2005-11-28T04:38:35Z")
Well, isn’t that special. He got up on his hind legs and spoke to us. (Dude, this isn’t the pit) ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287/127 "2005-11-28T05:24:17Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > In short, Pjen, you’re not interested in the truth, just in shouting loudly about lies…you’ve just proven yourself to be about as useful to rational debate as tits on a bull. > > Next time, bring something useful to the table. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > (Dude, this isn’t the pit). Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 5:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287/128 "2005-11-28T05:51:59Z")
> [@ImaginalDisc](#): > > I’ve been following this thread, and my background is as a biology student, not military science. So, perhaps I’m misunderstanding the meaning of the words “chemical” and “chemical weapon”. Bullet are chemicals, metal alloys to be more specific, but they do not injure as a result of their chemical properties. They injure because they hit people at high velocity. Grenades explode, but the main purpose of fragmentary grenades to to hit people with shrapnel. There are high explosive which are designed to hit people with heat, from exothermic chemical reactions, as well as the shock wave, depending on the explosives brissance. Am I right so far? > > Here’s where I’m confused. Burning someone alive is most definately a chemical reaction, but I take it that it doesn’t count as a “chemical weapon”? If we soak people in Napalm and light them up, the napalm sticks to them, thanks to it chemical properties, and burns them, again, thanks to it chemical properties. Are these “chemical” weapons? > > I don’t know about you, but I’d be more terrified about being burned alive by white phosphorous, than dying by inhaling too much chlroine gas. The earlier cites about chemical weapon treaties and regulations don’t sound like they were written by applied chemists, they sound like they were written by people who, let me be generous, had a special working meaning of the word “chemical”. > > So, what’s the word? It’s my understanding that the phrase “chemical weapons” is a euphemism for poison gas. Poison gas is a terribly ineffective weapon on the battlefield–even the Nazis didn’t bother with it. This fact allowed a bunch of nations to get together and ban its use, so they could feel good about themselves while devising new and much more horrible ways to kill each other. I don’t understand why chemical weapons are lumped together with biological and nuclear weapons as weapons of mass destruction. Compared to N or B weapons, C weapons seem more like weapons of mediocre destruction to me. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287/129 "2005-11-28T14:02:15Z")
> [@ImaginalDisc](#): > > So, what’s the word? You’re approaching this from a scientific perspective. However, the definitions of incendiaries, chemical weapons, and so forth are written in law, not science. The various treaties that have been cited here several times lay out in great precision what compounds are considered to be chemical weapons. Since you’re a scientist, however, the various [schedules](http://www.cwc.gov/) of the CWC may be interesting reading to you. (You know, if you’re into this sort of thing.) It’s basically lists of chemicals: IIRC, Schedule 1 is prohibited items, and 2 and 3 are those subject to restrictions. ---
**Author:** ![asterion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4da419/32.png) [@asterion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asterion)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287/130 "2005-11-28T15:01:05Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > It’s my understanding that the phrase “chemical weapons” is a euphemism for poison gas. Poison gas is a terribly ineffective weapon on the battlefield–even the Nazis didn’t bother with it. This fact allowed a bunch of nations to get together and ban its use, so they could feel good about themselves while devising new and much more horrible ways to kill each other. > > I don’t understand why chemical weapons are lumped together with biological and nuclear weapons as weapons of mass destruction. Compared to N or B weapons, C weapons seem more like weapons of mediocre destruction to me. Exhibit A–[Sarin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin). It may make for a lousy battlefield weapon, but it was a pretty good terrorist one when released in the Tokyo subway. Imagine a properly-purified form being released. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [November 28, 2005, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287/131 "2005-11-28T17:02:23Z")
> [@asterion](#): > > Exhibit A–[Sarin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin). It may make for a lousy battlefield weapon, but it was a pretty good terrorist one when released in the Tokyo subway. Imagine a properly-purified form being released. The Tokyo attacks were certainly horrific for the people involved, but the amount of deaths was much fewer than the number Al-Qaeda murdered in Madrid and London using only backpack conventional explosives. And that number is exceeded by those McVeigh killed using a truck bomb, or AQ using commercial airliners. Yet truck bombs and Kamikaze airliners don’t count as WMD. It’s true that the number of people injured in the AUM subway attacks was large, and that many of those affected have injuries that last to this day. But the total casualties would be dwarfed by the release of a highly contagious disease, let alone the detonation of a small nuke. And the sarin was released under ideal killing conditions–a small crowded underground space. I’ll concede that the subway attacks were pretty terrifying, and that poison gas is an effective means to accomplish terrorist ends–spreading fear throughout a civilian population. And, as you imply, the form of sarin used in Tokyo was not the most lethal version. But I still maintain that to categorize poison gas as a weapon of mass destruction alongside nukes and smallpox is illogical, and renders the term WMD incoherent. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chemical-weapons-found-in-iraq/331287.md?page=6)