Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

losthellhound · 11-15-2005, 11:36 PM

Im sorry if this has already been discussed.. You try searching for WMD in this forum

brings up every thread..

This has been a question of mine for awhile. Who gets the right to say who has WMDs and who can develop them? I know we don't wand WMDs, and it would be great to not have them anymore.. BUT

First we have to classify what a weapon of mass destruction is..

Everyone has a different opinion on what weapons are.. Mass destructive..
US Civil defence says..

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life. (18 U.S.C. Section 2332a)

source - wikipedia (and they got it from an official US website

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD

The UN has a different meaning, and so on and so forth.

WMDs are not restricted by ANY treaty, only weapons considered WMDs individually (nuclear disarmmament, use of napalm against civilian targets)..

The US, UK and several other governments (aka the colition in Iraq) say that Iraq was doing the great evil of developing Weapons of Mass destruction.. BUT - The US is constantly developing weapons that are WMDS.

I submit..

The BLU82-B

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm

This big baby is 15,000 pound conventional bomb with an effective kill radius of 300-900 feet). This is not a bunker buster. Its an anti personel weapon. Thats a pretty big weapon for killing a soldier..

I mention that because of the US Military's view on WMDs that include "Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people".. I rest my point.

The US government now wants to create Nuclear bunker busters..

http://www.ananuclear.org/rnep.html

So... Who are we to stop Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea from developing WMDs? Seems we are perfectly willing to start up an arms race, go back to MAD (mutually assured destruction). If I was a government that had frosty relations with the US I'd be doing my hardest to develop WMDs.. That way I can point something back at the US as an assurance that I won't get invaded when someone has a bad mood, or needs to get re-elected.

Thoughts?

11-15-2005, 11:36 PM	#1 (permalink)
losthellhound Thats MR. Muffin Face now Location: Everywhere work sends me	Who says who gets WMDs? Im sorry if this has already been discussed.. You try searching for WMD in this forum brings up every thread.. This has been a question of mine for awhile. Who gets the right to say who has WMDs and who can develop them? I know we don't wand WMDs, and it would be great to not have them anymore.. BUT First we have to classify what a weapon of mass destruction is.. Everyone has a different opinion on what weapons are.. Mass destructive.. US Civil defence says.. (1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life. (18 U.S.C. Section 2332a) source - wikipedia (and they got it from an official US website http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WMD The UN has a different meaning, and so on and so forth. WMDs are not restricted by ANY treaty, only weapons considered WMDs individually (nuclear disarmmament, use of napalm against civilian targets).. The US, UK and several other governments (aka the colition in Iraq) say that Iraq was doing the great evil of developing Weapons of Mass destruction.. BUT - The US is constantly developing weapons that are WMDS. I submit.. The BLU82-B http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm This big baby is 15,000 pound conventional bomb with an effective kill radius of 300-900 feet). This is not a bunker buster. Its an anti personel weapon. Thats a pretty big weapon for killing a soldier.. I mention that because of the US Military's view on WMDs that include "Weapons that are capable of a high order of destruction and/or of being used in such a manner as to destroy large numbers of people".. I rest my point. The US government now wants to create Nuclear bunker busters.. http://www.ananuclear.org/rnep.html So... Who are we to stop Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea from developing WMDs? Seems we are perfectly willing to start up an arms race, go back to MAD (mutually assured destruction). If I was a government that had frosty relations with the US I'd be doing my hardest to develop WMDs.. That way I can point something back at the US as an assurance that I won't get invaded when someone has a bad mood, or needs to get re-elected. Thoughts? __________________ "Life is possible only with illusions. And so, the question for the science of mental health must become an absolutely new and revolutionary one, yet one that reflects the essence of the human condition: On what level of illusion does one live?" -- Ernest Becker, The Denial of Death