Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (42051)	9/5/2002 4:39:53 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"Their [missile] warheads were not very good," said Charles Duelfer, the former deputy executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq, known as UNSCOM. "Most of the [biological and chemical] agent would incinerate on impact. It's long been known that the challenge of creating a chemical or biological weapon is dwarfed by the challenge of effectively delivering it. Delivery by missile, as cited above, is not very effective unless quite advanced technology is available. The description of the drone aircraft suggests that what many already suspected is true: Iraq is capable of attacking a civilian population or a military force with a limited anti-aircraft capacity with chemical or biological weapons. The drones and the helicopter-based delivery systems would be practically useless against a US force with AWACS cover combined with air superiority and effective surface-to-air weapons. They would be shot down before they came near their targets. In reality, they probably wouldn't get off the ground. These drones are modified trainers, they require an airstrip for takeoff. It is reasonable to expect that the available airstrips would be demolished by air attacks before US troops are committed. Nothing terribly frightening there.