AFAIK know binary rounds won´t work unless fired from artillery; the proper mixing of the chemicals depends on the acceleration and spin of the projectile. So even if one of those rusted shells would be a binary munition and if the chemicals haven´t turned into sludge, it would be nearly useless without a cannon (and even with one, who bets a rusted shell explodes on the barrel?)
This thread proves that you can.
Regards,
Shodan
The FACTS lead to no other conclusion. The fact that these munitions are degraded and useless is not in dispute. Neither is the fact that Iran-Iraq War relics rotting in the desert had nothing to do with our ostensible justifications for an invasion.
Who’s really doing the handwaving here?
Well, here’s an example that shows it does. I found this story about a man being critically injured and 30 others just “injured” by exposure to a WWII-era mustard gas barrel.
This suggests that mustard gas can degrade over that amount of time, but that it is still dangerous; however, this is a case of it being stored in a barrel, and not as a weapon, so it doesn’t address the issue of explosive capability. Bear in mind, also, that there’s a big difference between mustard gas in a barrel in storage and mustard gas in a weapon lying in the ground somewhere; the weaponized gas is likely to (but not certain) to have degraded further.
On preview, I see Shodan has come in for a little snark. Care to answer my question from before, yet?
Where Shodan failed, now shall Scylla proudly take up the banner of failure!
I still have to ask: where was all the outrage about using WMDs on people back when Saddam was actually using them?
Oh, I remember. It was the Senate trying to pass acts against genocide and an unlikely team up of people like Al Gore and Jesse Helms trying to put sacntions on Iraq. Meanwhile, the flawless conservative hero Reagan vetoed that bill, squelched sanctions, and continued to quietly pour money, both military and general support and credit, into Iraq. I guess manufacturing outrage and crocodile tears takes lots of time: like, almost two decades worth of time.
What were S & S right wing counterparts saying at the time? “Oh no, it was really Iran, stupid.” It was wrong to use gas (but apparently not wrong to gas civilians, because that might be defined as genocide, and that would be a no no) The State department position on this, under Reagan and Bush I: Iraq was a valuable market man, we can’t afford to pester them too much.
All I can say is, your definition of the “popular press” and mine are light-years apart.
Feel free to try again, though.
Just to keep me out of trouble: the bolded characterizations I’ve embedded within Shodan’s quote in my previous posts are mine, not Shodan’s.
And that should have been ‘post’, not ‘posts’. Aaargh.
Actually, it is, if you would care to read the whole thread.
You are.
No, I am not terribly concerned with your rather arbitrary limitations on cites you are willing to accept. The purpose of the exercise was to show that WMD is commonly used to refer to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. These are chemical weapons.
Now it is your turn. Provide at least three cites, from Republicans, proving that WMD never refers to any weapon that kills less than a hundred people at a crack.
And they have to be posted in months with no R.
Oh, and Revenant - your cites makes the following claim -
So it seems that the “critical injury” you refer to means, well, dead. And that even after fifty years, mustard gas can remain lethal.
That sounds familiar, for some reason. Where have I read about chemical weapons being buried, but still remaining deadly?
Regards,
Shodan
By who? The official reports say that all of these shells are degraded and useless. Who says that they’re otherwise besides you and Scylla? How about a cite that the official reports are wrong?
No they aren’t, and they are also not what we were looking for. The weapons inspectors always knew that these kinds of relics were out there and they were completely disregarded because they were known to be useless.
Name one who ever said they do. This attempt to define WMD down is YOUR weasel tactic. You defend it.
A WMD has to be able to discharge a nuclear, chemical or biological charge. These munitions CAN’T DO THAT. There is no dispute about that. We’re not guessing. That is the conclusion of the White House appointed experts who examined them. The White House itself does not dispute that the shells are degraded and useless. What is the basis for your assertion that they still have any WMD capability?
Not mustard GAS, the chemical agents which convert to a weaponized gas upon detonation. When degraded the stuff is caustic and nasty and can burn skin but can no longer be weaponized as a lethal gas. The guy in your quote was burned by physical contact with the agent, he was not gassed. You can burn people with battery acid too. That doesn’t make a car battery a WMD.
Actually, by Shodan’s standards, I think it is.
No, that’s not a personal attack. I honestly believe he thinks chemical weapons by definition qualify as WMDs. I’m not sure he’d rule out a pack of rabid attack dogs, either; I’d still greatly appreciate him weighing in on the specific question of tear-gas grenades.
You have not shown, in any remote way, shape, or form, that the American citizenry at large was exposed to this concept that a “WMD” was not necessarily something capable of killing more than a handful of people.
You produced three cites - one in a labor law dictionary, which is a very specialized source; one on a poli-sci prof’s homepage, which may or may not be read by anyone besides him, some colleagues, and some of his students; and a journal with a circulation of 10,000 that’s published six times a year, that’s so influential that I’ve never heard of it before, despite my being smack dab in the middle of their subscriber demographic, other than not living in New England.
Neither individually nor collectively do these cites provide any clue that the American citizenry was exposed to this idea.
Then you are clearly not interested in debating the point, because those ‘limitations’ are part and parcel of the deal. You can’t just pull a cite from anywhere on the Internet and say it’s indicative of what a particular group of people has been exposed to; there has to be reason to believe that the people in question had been exposed to that source or to other sources that would likely contain the same information.
Right. I’m not disputing that. I notice, however, that you didn’t claim “mustard gas can remain a W.M.D.”, which is what is the argument, here. A knife is deadly, but not a W.M.D.
Why, in this case! You’re correct; the parallels show these cases to be exactly the same! So i’ll accept your retraction of calling them W.M.D.'s now, since as shown in this case all those weapons are degraded to the point of an “oily liquid”.
Oh, any since you’re addressing me, could I ask you for the third time to answer my previous question? Is a pinch, a particle of sarin a W.M.D.?
That’s what America understood WMDs to mean. That’s not what has been found. End of story.
I have identified our next, greatest threat. I’m attempted to alert Sec. Chertoff personally, but they keep hanging up. I fear we’ve been infiltrated by al Qaeda sleepers posing as grillmasters. Buffalo wings my ass.
I would think that if it is still mustard gas than it is still a WMD, right?
Mustard gas IS an oily liquid.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=what+is+mustard+gas
The “official reports” don’t say that that I’m aware of. Link and quote please?
I agree that their not what we went to war for, and they don’t change anything. I think it’s stupid to pretend that an old mustard gas shell is useless or not exceedingly dangerous. The summary report said that terrorists would like to have these, didn’t it?
Why would they want them if they are useless?
There is dispute and you are guessing.
Cite that there’s a dispute?
I’m not guessing. This thread is filled with cites that these munitions are degraded.
Denial =/= dispute.
This is true. Binary shells utilise a spin-to-mix mechanism.