Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Bilow who wrote (100681)	6/9/2003 6:43:34 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (1) of 281500

Carl, Chemical munitions, especially made to relatively poor quality (as Iraq's were) do not have a long lifespan - ten years would be good. Anthrax, maybe, but that's not a warhead weapon especially as the Iraqis had it (nor is it a chemical). Anything else dating from the Iran-Iraq war would long since have degraded. What would you say is the likely failure and disposal rate of Iraqi shells over the 15 years intervening (1983-1998, never mind the 5 years since)? think they bothered documenting everything, or might they have wanted some to still exist - at least, on paper? The military in totalitarian dictatorships aren't known for passing back bad news willingly, since it's bad for the career... think they'd admit that their much-vaunted chemical shells were worthless junk? In addition, and a key point I keep forgetting, a chemical warhead is NOT a WMD. Even landing in an urban area it'd kill far less people than a MOAB, for starters... Don't be thrown by the chickenhawks here and their post roc rationalisations.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next