Interesting article

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 28, 2003, 9:29 am

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2888903.stm

Disclaimer: I'm not posting this here to make or try to score any points it's here because I found it educational. Especially the information about VX.

Enjoy.

Trek · Post by **Trek** » March 28, 2003, 12:16 pm

ok I will bite for you. Yes I am in totaly agreement that we should'nt use any chemicals even the riot control stuff, especially if its 'illegal'. If we have to go house to house to clear out the guard, so be it. Flash bangs and mp5's would be more effective anyways.

I am highly dubious of any 'red line' anyways, I still maintain that Iraq won't use the stuff IF they do infact have it.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 28, 2003, 12:50 pm

Seriously, I wasn't looking for any bites

Yeah the scarey-sci-fi future stuff needs keeping an eye on but Geneva Convention or not I don't have a problem with an army choosing to use tear gas instead of bullets.

I still maintain that Iraq won't use the stuff IF they do infact have it

Holy fuckin shit we agree on something!!1!

Trek · Post by **Trek** » March 28, 2003, 1:00 pm

vn_Tanc wrote:I don't have a problem with an army choosing to use tear gas instead of bullets.

Holy fuckin shit we agree on something!!1!

Most people would not, I really dont either

BUT if the US/coalition uses any chemical in this conflict without the proper 'permissions' then we are no different then those we face, I am sure in his(Saddam's) twisted mind he thought the use of gas on the Iranians 'would save lives' and it did just that, for him. For us to use gases even non-lethal ones, the Iraqies would be forced to counter IMO. How are they supposed to know they where attacked by non-lethal chems, do we just tell them, dont worry there are no long term effects.....trust us.

I doubt you really agree with me on any point, you must not have had your coffee as of yet.

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 28, 2003, 1:06 pm

It's 4pm here I'm fully caffeinated

I don't hink Saddam would use CB weapons now (if he has them) for 2 reasons:
1) He isn't that stupid/mad/inhuman/evil.
2) It would tip his hand and you don't want to do that when you have 72o and your opponent is holding 5, maybe 6 Aces

I could be wrong on both counts, sure, but those are my instincts.

Using them against Iran was probably just to kill as many of them as possible though seeing as that war was bogged down in trench-warfare stalemate (much like WW1 where they were first used).

VariaVespasa · Post by **VariaVespasa** » March 28, 2003, 1:12 pm

Tanc- he wont use them because the political opposition to the US invasion is worth more to him than chemical weapons use could ever be, even if he thought could take out 25% of the entire coallition force by using them. And thats the only calculation that matters to him. If the UN was already in there with the US he'd quite happily use them when he felt a decent target presented itself. If he ever feels he really is toast thats the time he'll seriously think about using them, until then theyre more valuable to him unused than used.
*Hugs*
Varia

Trek · Post by **Trek** » March 28, 2003, 1:37 pm

Would'nt it be something if we catch Saddam, we search Iraq for all that 'bad guy stuff' to no avail, world oppinion gets to the point that we cannot ignore and we are forced to say woops I guess they had nothing and had to release Saddam back into the world.....

yes yes I know he will be up on charges and what not, just a funny little scenario

vn_Tanc · Post by **vn_Tanc** » March 28, 2003, 1:50 pm

Varia that's what my cryptic poker analogy in point (2) meant

Thanks for the clarification