Thanks, king
Sua
Thanks, king
Sua
And guarded by sharks with frickin’ lasers on their heads.
Or barracudas.
Based on yesterday’s trio of chemical weapons reports, I was wondering whether maybe the military sent out word: “Uh guys? Y’all are looking for WMDs, right? Big fat promotion for whoever finds the first WMDs in Iraq!” or something like that.
I don’t trust George Bush farther than I can throw him, but I think his lackeys are too smart to plant evidence. Given the amount of scrutiny any evidence of WMDs will face, it’d be extremely risky to plant such evidence.
OTOH, I wouldn’t be surprised, and I wouldn’t blame the military brass, if they’re really pushing the discovery of WMDs. And maybe yesterday they pushed the WMD issue hard enough that several people jumped the gun in reporting what they’d found.
This is, of course, a total WAG.
Daniel
We planted pesticide in Iraq?:smack:
If you are speaking of the dead Iraqi to dead Coalition ratio, I suspect it is QUITE higher than 20:1.
SIZE=1]tee hee…[/SIZE]
:eek:
Good question. Other than just the use of the two terms non-interchangably dependent on the system, I’m not that sure. For example: the (I think) 70mm “rockets” our helicopters shoot are never called missiles. The Hellfire “missile” is never called a rocket. Both are shot at tanks from helicopters. One is guided (the Hellfire). But, then it’s a guided missile. Why can’t it be a guided (or for that matter, why can’t there be a “ballistic”)rocket?
Just in terms of dictionary definitions, “rocket” seems more appropriate for both rockets and missiles–“missile” being anything thrown or projected through the air or space.
OTOH, you’ll never hear “intercontinental ballistic rocket,” or, “guided rocket.”
The system in question, I think, the BM-21 is always called a “rocket” system.
To further confuse the issue, I’ll note that vehicles which carry payloads into orbit or space are called “rockets” and they most definitely have long range AND guidance systems. Apollo 11 was a rocket, not a missile.
Enjoy,
Steven
IOW, a “rocket” is a rocket because we call it a rocket, even if it’s a missile, and a “missile” is a missile because we call it a missile, even if it’s a rocket.
Glad we cleared that up.
Sua
Y’all may have seen this over in the pit thread, but I haven’t seen it posted here.
Oh, look at that. NPR isn’t saying much about those missiles, but they are reporting on another rogue nation attempting to squeak out of its treaty obligations regarding the use of chemical weapons.
Oops, I mean pesticides. My bad.
It should be interesting to see what comes of this.
When you know how to make & militarise nerve gas in bulk (easy) & have the will to do so & the will to use it wrongly (all demonstrated) then you have nerve gas as a WMD.
The existence of actual drums of chemical matters not a whit if you can make it quickly.
If SH had destroyed his stores (mebbe he did) he could have quickly rearmed.US gov realises this but says nothing as it would seem too pre-emptive for some.
The only solution to that problem would be to bomb the whole country back into the 18th century.
Fox is reporting “Weapons Grade Plutonium!” and “Rolling Bioweapons Labs!” on TV right now.
[sub]X-ray machine near an RV with a mold problem[/sub]
Actually, I think Iraq will turn out to have all sorts of weapons of mass destruction. It is amazing that the smoking gun thing has dragged this long.
Not really. Say you are a despot (you know you have it in you, Beagle :D). You know you are going to be invaded, and invaded from the south. You have WoMD. Those WoMD may be your only chance of surviving the war. Further, your war plans are to try to hold on until international opinion forces the invader to pull out, and if WoMD are found, international opinion will turn seriously against you.
Do you keep WoMD in the south of your country, or do you pull it back into areas of the country that are better protected/farther away/less likely to be subject to an attack by the invaders?
Sua
Move the WMDs to Tikrit and keep the reserves in Syria! [sub]Send the general to the plastic shredder…[/sub]
Beagle the Grand Puppbah
Sure. That hypothetical is very possible, even though Rumsfeld is claiming exactly that.
Oh, by the way, if what Fox is reporting is true, the “Mobile Bioweapons Lab!” was confiscated from some guy who had stolen it. Someone “left the keys in it.” :eek:
OK, they are showing pictures. It looks like a panel truck, with a window unit AC,* but no window. It’s been hit with automatic weapons fire. If it’s a lab, it’s a small one. Seriously, this is no semi.
*Is that standard, or an option? Maybe part of the premium package? Sorry. However, in this case it really matters. If missiles (the theory being it’s a disguised SAM truck) are generally kept air conditioned and ventilated then I guess it’s normal looking–to me.
Fox on the plutonium. The scrolling headline deals with the bioweapons lab. Fox is either right, or their crediblity–along with all the other news outlets on this particular issue (including NPR)–takes another hit. It’s not that Saddam doesn’t have them, I just don’t want to hear about every pesticide depot, as we discussed earlier, or every nuclear waste dump. Which, by the way, is my early theory on the “Weapons Grade Plutonium!”
OTOH, Fox is claiming that the plutonium tested positive for two teams trained in these things.
Actually, my hypothetical assumes someone at the top making decisions before the war began. IOW, if any WoMD were in southern Iraq, they were shipped out of there before the bombs started falling.
Sua
IIRC, the rocket itself didn’t have a guidance system, in the sense that it only followed a pre-programmed flight path.
Missiles have various sorts of sensors and the flight path is modified by inputs.