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: thames_sider who wrote (100958)	6/10/2003 1:28:21 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (2) of 281500

Chemical weapons don't cut it - they are awful ways to die, but won't kill prepared troops and would not be that effective even against civilians except at close range or with the kind of air power only the US has... A more useful way to differentiate conventional weapons from WMDs, imo, is to think of 'bang for the buck'. You can certainly kill hundreds of thousands of people conventionally - the firebombings of Dresden and Tokyo were achieved with conventional weapons - but you need to assemble a huge effort to do it. If you ask, can you wreak a huge amount of destruction with a pocketful of the stuff? then the answer is no for conventional explosives, but yes for sarin or anthrax. If you then think of Al Qaeda, the possibilities become very alarming.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next