Just wondering where the SDopers think we’re (US) is going in the next few years regarding a war without traction in Iraq. Should we start developing and stock piling Bioterror weapons to show the Arabic countries we mean business? Maybe playing “the mouse that roared card” might be the only way to keep peace and order in the world.
I am just trying to picture where things are going and how Iraq is fixing the little red wagons’ of anti-American Islamics while their “leader” remains on the lam. Does the US have a goal, or is it just a free-for-all in Iraq, tit-for-tat, with each guerilla attack.
In the long run, how are we (US) going to restore world order? Because we’re sure to break the bank (as if we haven’t already) by trying to police the world…
I don’t care if you’re Left or Right, we all better come to the table with a plan to figure out how we’re not just all gonna kill each other as hatred continues to grow between West and ancient Islam. - Jinx
You mean continue the programs we already have going while saying out of the side of our mouth “no one should have WMDs”?
I’m in favor of bio/chem weapon research so defensive mechanisms can be put into place… unfortunately, that requires developing bio/chem weapons. It is a tough call. I think we should, but we also shouldn’t go around invading people on premises of them doing the same thing.
I’m fairly certain that we already have biological weapons. Much of the investagation into the Post Office anthrax scare was on government employees that had access to highly refined methods of producing anthrax. We just haven’t concentrated on deploying delivery systems. Not that it would take us much time to so if we wished. . .
Well, deployment could be as easy as a crop duster airplane. Or, the crop duster blower attached to the bottom of a C-3, for one. I just wonder if Bin Laden pulls off a third “trick” (WTC part I, USS Cole, and 9/11)…will we take a “Cuban Missle Crisis” stance with the Mid-East drawing the line in the sand (literally)? - Jinx
It’s not like we’re having trouble killing people with conventional weapons. And I don’t see what bioterror stuff would add to our already impressive conventional and nuclear deterents.
The goal is to stabilize the country enough to hold elections, then support the elected gov’t. I can’t imagine that a stockpile of anthrax will help this.
I don’t really see how a deterent of any sort helps us against bin Ladin or Iraqi insurgents. OBL doesn’t really have any cities or countries to bomb in retaliation, and while I suppose we could nuke Fallujah to get the Iraqi insurgents, I don’t think that would really help our goal of stabalizing Iraq.
A lot of the military ordinance is interchangable. You don’t need another delivery mechanism when you can strap on a chemical warhead to a GPS guided cruise missile or what have you. We did this all the time in the Cold War - non-nuclear and nuclear weapons were interchangable on notice. Also, a prime delivery device for chemical weapons is a simple mortar round, which I’m sure we have plenty of.
No, developing weapons designed to kill civilians en masse is the last thing the US needs right now. We should focus on weapons that are highly effective with good intelligence backing them up and that minimize collateral damage.
The United States has no biological weapons. It has no useable chemical weapons. (That is if you give me a year, I might be able to field some sort of rocket or something to use our leftover mustard. The stuff is in bulk form or is on obsolete weapons.)
If any poster has any information to the contrary, please put up or shut up. Thank you.
The anthrax incident at Fort Detrick (right next to my Mother’s house BTW) shows how little anthrax the US has. Certainly not enough to make a real weapon.
Now, as to if the US ought to have such weapons, the answer is no. Why should we? Nuclear weapons are already something of a white elephant. We do not think we will ever use them again. Bugs and gas are much the same, a huge cost both financially and politicly for weapons that have little use.
Agreed. The US does not have biological weapons stockpiled, just the technology needed to make them if need be. And ours would be first class, not the junk that a terriost organization would come up with. The thing is we don’t need them. They serve no purpose and are more problems than they are worth.
Is that Oregon Facility anywhere near completing thier assignment? I would not count that as a “useable” stockpile. Probably kill more of our people than thiers if we tried to use ordinance that old!
One coal to heap on the fire from the “religious nutcase” side of the equation - the book of Genesis does make it pretty clear that the Palestinians and Israelis will be at odds until the “new earth” comes around… Nevertheless, what shall we do?? (I don’t even have a good idea: wars frighten me terribly, be they biological, conventional, nuclear…)
No. Absolutely and amphatically no. A bullet is fired, it hits or misses, and it’s finished. A bomb goes off, it’s done. A bioweapon can not be shut off; once it is released it keeps spreading. It does not limit itself to the border, it does not distinguish between friend or enemy. There is no reason, sane or insane, to unleash another PLAGUE on the world.
