Originally posted by UncleAdamThat's because he doesn't need to. Besides, he has nukes, which are much more destructive and would be used if the US's survival was at stake. Nevertheless, the US feels the need to arm itself with chemical and biological weapons, perhaps to 'keep up with the Joneses'.
I have been watching the news almost non-stop since the war started, no-were have I seen anyone on the Bush side saying anything about useing chemical weapons.
Originally posted by UncleAdamread about it in a newspaper- maybe it hasn't been widely reported, as the american and british press usually only print what the government want you to see. Controversial stuff
I have been watching the news almost non-stop since the war started, no-were have I seen anyone on the Bush side saying anything about useing chemical weapons.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by UncleAdamBut we do have them, we just agree not to use them. If in doubt read the below article on Porton Down from the British MOD web page
I'd like to know what newpaper that is,
USA or UK does not use any bio-chemical or chemical weapons,
altho we do have nukes.
http://www.mod.uk/issues/portondownvolunteers/history.htm
Andrew
Originally posted by UncleAdamAdam,
I'd like to know what newpaper that is,
USA or UK does not use any bio-chemical or chemical weapons,
altho we do have nukes.
I know for a fact that the UK has chemical & biological weapons. Porten Down (sp?) is a classic example of where we make the weapons "just to test them out". I guarentee you that the US has similar facilities. There's an island off the coast of Scotland that has only just been reopened after 50 years of quarenteen, after the government tested Anthrax there.
It's also worth noting that the Geneva Convention, which is pretty much the rules of war, only says that states that have signed it will not use chemical or biological weapons FIRST! Once the opposition has used them (and how much proof must be provided of that?) it's open day in the dirty war tactics farm.
Originally posted by belgianfreakLike I said above, I know we have them, but we dont use them.
Adam,
I know for a fact that the UK has chemical & biological weapons. Porten Down (sp?) is a classic example of where we make the weapons "just to test them out". I guarentee you that the US has similar facilities. There's an island off the coast of Scotland that has only just been reopened after 50 years of quarenteen, after the government tested ...[text shortened]... em (and how much proof must be provided of that?) it's open day in the dirty war tactics farm.
sorry, I was typing while you were posting. The Geneva convention point, that we're only not allowed to use them first, still holds. And from recent history I'm not convinced as to how much proof the US will give that chemical weapons have been used against them first.
On a lighter note, the main chemical weapon the Russians stockpiled in the cold war was : LSD!!! When they realised this the US did a test on some of it's own troups (a tactic they used often) of giving them simple tasks, and telling them to continue to do them until told to stop (they weren't told what was going to happen, or even that they were part of an experiment). After being dosed with LSD from a passing plane the soldiers couldn't function, including simple tasks such as getting dressed or putting boxes on a truck.
Not so nice was when the US tested blister agent (the same stuff that Saddam used on the Kurds - I wonder where he got the tech from?) on some troups, again without telling them what was going to happen.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
Originally posted by UncleAdamAdam,
Like I said above, I know we have them, but we dont use them.
What concerns me is the senario where say Sadam has his back to the wall and he uses them on US troops, say he kills 2000 US troops - you can not nuke him as killing civilians is against the stated war aims, so would it be correct to use biological weapons against Sadam troops to end the war and ensure that no more US troops are injured? What if the gas we would use would offer no pain to the iraqi soliders?
What if he killed 10,000 soliders? Can you say 100% that your government would not use them? Remember, you are the only country to have fired nukes in anger. This is what concerns me as I just do not trust George Bush if things go wrong. How far will he go given that he has no clear exit strategy? What damage will he do. As for all this talk of Syria now - well that it just getting silly.
Andrew
Originally posted by latex bishopI dont think that he would kill 2000 of our troops because we have state of the art Cem-suites, and if he does use them he is most likely to kill civilians and his trops with them because sme of his troops and all his civilians dont have Cem-suites.
Adam,
What concerns me is the senario where say Sadam has his back to the wall and he uses them on US troops, say he kills 2000 US troops - you can not nuke him as killing civilians is against the stated war aims, so would it be correct to use biological weapons against Sadam troops to end the war and ensure that no more US troops are injured? What i ...[text shortened]... amage will he do. As for all this talk of Syria now - well that it just getting silly.
Andrew
I'm 100% sure that he wont use them because we are not trying to destroy Iraq, just Saddam's regime.
Saddam's regime has killed 1,000s if not 10,000s of civilians at a time with bio weapons.
-Adam
Originally posted by latex bishopgood point- did you see the pre-war stuff bush was sprouting? about north korea and iraq- "we're americans, we can fight two wars!"
Adam,
What concerns me is the senario where say Sadam has his back to the wall and he uses them on US troops, say he kills 2000 US troops - you can not nuke him as killing civilians is against the stated war aims, so would it be correct to use biological weapons against Sadam troops to end the war and ensure that no more US troops are injured? What i ...[text shortened]... amage will he do. As for all this talk of Syria now - well that it just getting silly.
Andrew
*or words to that effect- which won't be that different considering how articulate the american president is.
Saddam has used chemical weapons on his "own" people (actually , it was on the Kurds who he probably wouldn't class as his own people)don't over exagerate. I doubt if he killed more than a few hundred using them in total.
And, thinking of the thread on morality, what if Saddams use of chemical weapons killed 100 but saved 1000 by quelling the violent Kurdish uprising? I'm not justifying his actions, but is it right to look at them only as far as the surface? The US nuked 2 cities in WWII but that was OK, because it stopped the war & saved more lives than it took...
You're right that the soldiers have chem suits, and that fatalities wouldn't be that high, but they would prove effective in that the soldiers would wear those chem suits more often and be less able to fight (have you ever tried to just breath in one of those things, let alone fight in a desert).
At the last Persian Gulf war the US told Saddam that if he use chemical weapons they would nuke his home town (I forget it's name) first. The use of the word "first" was deliberatly used to indicate that it wouldn't be the last. I just hope that this threat isn't still active today.