According to a US General in this story, there were no SCUDS.
Then what does it do?
What purpose does a weapon that has a range of hundreds of miles, a large explosive warhead, and no guidance system to speak of have?
Ask the Germans, they invented the idea with the V-2 rocket…
Yeah, but the Patriot missle defense system is 100% effective!
The purpose is terror. There is a difference between a terror weapon and a weapon of mass destruction.
There is also a difference beween killing “people” and killing “a population”. If there wasn’t, the US would be nuking Baghdad. I BTW, I don’t say this as a criticism of the US military, in fact I applaud the fact that they make such a clear distinction, as Milo just as clearly does not.
Sorry, my previous post was in reply to kitfox. AZCowboy posted while I was composing it.
Another Central Command press conference is being held at this time, at which a three-star behind the podium has said that there is no evidence yet of wmd.
I guess Milo has not made it there yet to correct them. So much for the fight against ignorance.
The difference between a WMD and a weapon that can cause mass destruction seems pretty distinct.
A WMD (nuclear, bio, chem) has no other function than to kill a civilian population. All of these weapons are unesessary to kill soldiers or hit military targets. Why use a nuke to take out a military complex, no, a nuke is to destroy a city or take out a civilian population. Same with biological warfare. Soldiers are most likely to have equipment to protect them- therefore the only real use of them is to hit soldiers that aren’t equipped or hit a civilian center.
A convential warhead, while it can be used against a civilian population, is in fact designed for a military target. A tank, a formation of troops, a bunker, etc. A machine gun can be used to kill off a crowd of civilians, but is not a WMD. I can be used as one, but a machine gun wasn’t designed, nor is it conventially used in such a fashion.
Do you understand the difference now or should I extrapolate further?
I disagree with this definition. There are military targets considered to be targets that are “legitimate” targets for nuclear weapons, putting aside the possible political implications of such a decision and whether escalation night result.
Hardened ICBM sites might need to be taken out by “counterforce” neclear weapons, for example. Or a target like the military command center under Cheyanne mountain. Another common theoretical target for tactical nuclear weapons is an infantry or armored division. It used to be part of the European defense strategy to nuke invading Soviet ground forces, in order to compensate for the numerically inferior American forces. Pressure from our European allies eventually led to an end to the these plans, but AFAIK it was never formally renounced.
Actually, chemical weapons have a pretty good military function, as demonstrated in WWI.
Tactical nukes can wipe out entire columns of armor, and they don’t even have to be particularly accurate to do so.
Biological weapons can reduce the effectiveness of enemy forces over time, blunting an attack or ending a seige.
With any of these weapons, a ballistic missile might have some military use. They aren’t dependant on accuracy as much, since they are either amazingly powerful or their effects have staying power.
A conventional warhead has neither of these advantages. The explosive force, while it can be pretty big, is still localized. If shooting at an advancing force, being off by a kilometer will probably mean a wasted missile, while a nuke could still do damage.
What I’m saying here is that it without an NBC warhead, scuds are completely useless for anything other than blowing up cities. NBC warheads actually increase the military uses of the missile, but they also increase the ability to blow up/kill cities.
This one goes out to all you obstinate naysayers… Happy?
Let’s just wait and see if it turns out to be another aspirin factory before we rush to judgement on it.
More chem factory cites at Jpost and Fox, but I suppose until the Worker’s Daily or NYT cover it, it isn’t ‘news’ to some.
You are operating under an illusion. You seem to believe that if proof can be found that Saddam had WMD’s of any kind, whatsoever, that means this entire bloody debacle is proven to be justified. If you find some comfort in that, it would be churlish of me to disagree.
But ask yourself this: after all the lies and half-truths we have stooped to in an effort to get our way, who’s going to believe us? We have cried “Wolf!” too many times.
Further, who gives a rats ass what he’s got so long as he doesn’t use them? Part of the foundation of the argument is that Saddam is a madman, he can’t be contained or deterred. And yet our soldiers roll over him like a knife through butter, and this is the first hint we’ve had of WMD’s. Why?
Note: IIRC, The Al Samoud (1) is a legal weapon. It’s the Al Samoud 2 that we had a problem with.
Why is Geraldo fucking around in Afghanistan when his network is so obviously in need of better journalistic skills in Iraq ?
Genius elucidator, your powers of rationalization are truly a spectacle to behold. I know you are familiar with this argument but… lets say
a.) Part of the foundation of the argument is that Saddam is a madman, he can’t be contained or deterred
And this hasn’t been made obvious to you? What makes you think “containment” is working when after 13 years of disarmament we are still finding illegal weapons?
b.) our soldiers roll over him like a knife through butter
Well why do you think he is developing weapons? WMD’s don’t have to be used on the open battlefield. They can be used to threaten, they can be used anonymously, they can be sold, they can be very, very dangerous to the general population of any nation. Please do try and let that sink in. It is not a threat that the international community feels comfortable with Saddam controlling.
c.) this is the first hint we’ve had of WMD’s. 
(!)
First hint? Are you really going to be that obtuse?
Bleh, if you can’t even acknowledge the danger of rogue states with WMD’s then all of this going to bounce right off of you. I was expecting an accusation of the US “planting evidence” at the very least, but I guess that’s academic because apparently that was never what any of this was about. Could have fooled me.
Fine with me, the US better make damn sure they have solid evidence for anything they find. I understand their credibility isn’t necessarily at an all time high.
------------- Part of the foundation of the argument is that Saddam is a madman, he can’t be contained or deterred. And yet our soldiers roll over him like a knife through butter, and this is the first hint we’ve had of WMD’s. Why?
-
This is a distortion of Pollack’s argument. Saddam is not a madman, he is a man who is adept and overly-focused on internal security threats while being a serial miscalculator with regards to external security threats.
-
Pollack also noted that though the command to use WMDs may occur when the regime is under threat, such orders from above may not be obeyed. Loading and using chem weapons is dangerous work.
-
Furthermore, it may make strategic sense to slime US troops once they have advanced a certain distance from the Kuwaiti border. Let’s hope this reason is not applicable.
DtC, I can say with absolute, 100% certainty that WMDs will be found in Iraq by the Allied forces.
Whether they were there to begin with is another question entirely.
That’s not what I said. Go back and read my last post. I said, “An action is either legal or illegal based on the existing laws. “Interpretation” doesn’t enter into it. If you have to interpret, the law isn’t written plainly enough.” Yes, the Supreme Court and other lower courts interpret laws all the time. My point is, if the law is written plainly enough, interpretation isn’t necessary. When you’re dealing with constitutional law more than 200 years old, interpretation becomes necessary because society has changed.
You seem to misunderstand the point. I’m not claiming to have another interpretation. I’m just saying other interpretations of the articles and resolutions exist, due (in my opinion) to a rather vague wording on the part of the UN. To arbitrarily state that this war is “illegal,” as you’ve done multiple times, is wrong.
I fail to see how this contradicts my earlier point.