SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (171398)6/27/2006 11:30:02 AM
From: Lane3  Respond to of 793845
 
Or that various chemicals, or things like sarin gas have to be in "shells" to be classified as weapons?

No, they simply need to be a viable weapon. Fresh sarin in a glass vial on the subway in the hands of a terrorist would be a weapon. Old sarin in a shell at the bottom of a hole in the desert isn't a viable weapon. It may have some of the makings of a viable weapon, I suppose, but it is not one. It may be a viable environmental hazard, though. And it may be a weapon if someone finds it, if the sarin has a little kick left in it, and if it's refurbished with the intent to use.

But I don't expect that distinction to resonate with someone who still seems to think that jihadis wanting to kill us all somehow makes us all but dead. <g>



To: KLP who wrote (171398)6/27/2006 11:37:43 AM
From: Alan Smithee  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793845
 
. Are you saying that a chemical or a biological WMD has to be placed in a "shell" to be a WMD? To be in a casing??

Do you think that smallpox or plague of various types, or items like anthrax have to be in "shells" to be classified as weapons?

Prior to 9/11, one typically wouldn't think of a passenger aircraft as a missle.

Things change.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News