Why is N included with the B and C?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: 1 2

Kalashnikov RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 4/23/2003 4:33:14 PM

Simply because they are all WMDs. Think of it. A single shot from an rifle can kill one person. A cloud of anthrax spores over a Russian town can kill dozens and a chemical attack in Kurdistan can kill 5000 people. Nuclear weapons are simply the extreme end of WMD. And as for bio-weapons being around for centuries, this is true, although they were never used, developed and harnessed effectively until this century. Same goes for chemical weapons. There has never been the same threat of fundamentalist organizations or terror groups attaining these weapons in the past.

Quote Reply

PaulG RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 4/23/2003 5:29:02 PM

Thanks for the thoughts, K. I've read, though, that ton for ton, chemical weapons have historically had no more lethality than conventional HE, which terror groups HAVE had access to for a while, without succeeding in disrupting civilization as we know it. A gas attack can kill 5000 in Kurdistan over the course of days or weeks; jet fuel loaded on two airliners killed 2,800 at the World Trade Center in a matter of hours. To me they're still in the same league. Put a nuke at the WTC and everything you've read about civilization is instantly out of date. IMO.

Quote Reply

Kalashnikov RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 4/23/2003 6:19:53 PM

This is true, no doubt. But the reason for chem/bio weapon's lethality is the ability for them to spread. A high explosive blast occurs, then dissipates soon after while a lethal toxin or a chemical agent will linger in the area for weeks. Radioactive materials may linger for centuries before loosing their lethality. The main problems with these weapons (chemical & biological) are their delivery. If not delivered with extreme preperation & caution, they may easily backfire. although I must agree, the term Weapons of Mass Destruction is rather misleading, as conventional weapons have killed myriads more over the years than NBC weapons.

Quote Reply

bsl RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 4/23/2003 7:03:15 PM

There is room for criticism, but, essentially, the idea is that there are weapons which are of limited "military" use, which are, essentially, death tossed to the winds, and which are, for one reason or another, unacceptably destructive. Chemical weapons make the list as much for historical reasons as anything. They did, after all, kill tens of thousands and injure hundreds of thousands during WW1, where they were astonishingly ineffective in a military sense. Add to that that they are virtually the only things Hitler drew back from using. Nuclear weapons have the images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki attached. Bio weapons make the list mostly on potential.

Quote Reply

PaulG RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 4/23/2003 10:26:08 PM

Appreciate the comments, K and bsl. I guess where the discussion is leading me is that I wonder if grouping chem and bio with nuclear will result in counterproductive policy. E.g., sending our armed forces and intelligence services on a global search and destroy mission into any petty dictatorship that might be cooking up some noxious chemicals, rather than pouring our resources into finding and wiping out potentially loose nukes (e.g., in Russia) or taking on/taking out governments where they might be making progress developing nukes. To me, that's the game that matters.

Quote Reply

PaulG RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 4/23/2003 10:27:41 PM

Yikes! I reread my last post. By "wiping out" potentially loose nukes in Russia, I meant through police work in cooperation with the Russians, not pre-emptive strikes on Russia!

Quote Reply

Kalashnikov RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 4/24/2003 7:25:42 AM

This is true, as nuclear weapons are capable of much more than a chemical or even biological attack. That is, if theya re used correctly. A "dirty bomb" isen't really much more than a large explosion which spreads radioactive material. Many people would be stricken ill by it, but relatively few would die of the explosion (At least compared to what the popular view of a nuclear weapon is). But the other sides of the WMD triangle must also be dealt with. For instance, say a group of terrorists applied a new form of chemical/filter resistant bacteria to the Mississipi River. Without anyone knowing until it is too late (Assuming nobody drinks the water beforehand), hundreds if not thousands could die of become seriously ill. But policework in Russia is a very real option for the future, that is, if we do not already have police-aids in the country. The point is, while nuclear weapons still pose a greater threat, and I agree, should be first on our list to take care of, the other two WMD types can also be extremely dangerous when used properly.

Quote Reply

PaulG RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 4/24/2003 1:35:31 PM

Fair enough, K.

Quote Reply

vfrickey RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 12/2/2003 8:04:09 PM

"Chem, bio and nuclear weapons are all lumped together in this category and in the notion of WMD. Why?" Nuclear weapons aren't just explosives. They also deliver radiation promptly (during the detonation) and by fallout (after the detonation, and away from ground zero - sometimes far away). NBC weapons used to (more accurately) be called CBR (for Chemical, Biological and Radiological) weapons - a term which includes "dirty bombs" that disperse radioactivity without a nuclear explosion, or - like "neutron bombs" or cobalt-jacketed nuclear explosives, are nuclear weapons optimized to deliver extremely high levels of radioactivity as their main means of inflicting casualties. "Special weapons" (the most recent change of terminology - witness the change of nomenclature of the agency that buys nuclear weapons for DoD from the "Defense Nuclear Agency" to the "Defense Special Weapons Agency" - and NOW to the "Defense Threat Reduction Agency," which still buys, designs, trains on and deploys nuclear weapons for DoD, despite the politically correct rename) - kill by making people ill, as opposed to rending them limb from limb or otherwise rearranging their bodies. In short, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, radiological weapons and biological weapons are all "naughty" weapons, as opposed to "Daisy Cutters," MOABs, cluster bombs, flechette shells, and other "non-naughty weapons." I didn't say it made any sense, but that's why the "Defense Threat Reduction Agency" buys our nuclear weapons. Of course, I fully agree with the idea that if we own all the nuclear weapons in the world, the threat of nuclear war falls to a very low level - an idea with which lots of DTRA troops probably agree.

Quote Reply

vfrickey RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 12/2/2003 8:33:24 PM

"Put a nuke at the WTC and everything you've read about civilization is instantly out of date." It's worse than that. Three nuclear weapons used at strategic points over the United States (in the ionosphere) could destroy most of the semiconductor-based devices in the country by inducing high levels of electromagnetic pulse (commonly referred to as EMF or EMP). Jessica Alba fans may remember this was the reason why the United States in her TV series "Dark Angel" was reduced to Third World status - and if terrorists ever acquire the capacity to loft nuclear devices into the ionosphere, it could still happen. North Korea, a terrorist state if ever there was one, has that capability and may have nuclear devices small enough to use on their rockets. That's most of the computers, most of the cars built since 1980, most of the civilian aircraft, most of the medical life-support devices, most of the banking infrastructure, most of the telephone system and Internet - most of civilization as we know it. (1) Hardening all of the above key assets against EMP would be an incredibly expensive undertaking, one into which the government has looked as part of its preparations to fight a nuclear war. (2) Actually, crippling the United States culturally, economically, and technologically in this matter would be closer to what Osama bin Laden says he wants to do than his first try at mass murder was. This makes it all the more imperative to locate and kill ObL and all of his minions and flunkies. 1. Makoff, Greg and Kosta Tsipis, "The Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse," Report #19. Program in Science and Technology for International Security, Cambridge, MA, March 1988, p.3. 2. Glasstone, Samuel and Phillip J. Dolan, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Department of the Army, Washington D. C., 1977, pp. 353-54

Quote Reply

vfrickey RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 12/2/2003 8:40:25 PM

Please pardon the repetition of this post, I read it and realized it could have been much clearer. "Put a nuke at the WTC and everything you've read about civilization is instantly out of date." It's worse than that. Three nuclear weapons used at strategic points over the United States (in the ionosphere) could destroy most of the semiconductor-based devices in the country by inducing high levels of electromagnetic pulse (commonly referred to as EMF or EMP). That's most of the computers, most of the cars built since 1980, most of the civilian aircraft, most of the medical life-support devices, most of the banking infrastructure, most of the telephone system and Internet - most of civilization as we know it. (1) Jessica Alba fans may remember this was the reason why the United States in her TV series "Dark Angel" was reduced to Third World status - and if terrorists ever acquire the capacity to loft nuclear devices into the ionosphere, it could still happen. North Korea, a terrorist state if ever there was one, has that capability and may have nuclear devices small enough to use on their rockets. Hardening all of the above key assets against EMP would be an incredibly expensive undertaking, one into which the government has looked as part of its preparations to fight a nuclear war. (2) Actually, crippling the United States culturally, economically, and technologically in this matter would be closer to what Osama bin Laden says he wants to do than his first try at mass murder was. This makes it all the more imperative to locate and kill ObL and all of his minions and flunkies. 1. Makoff, Greg and Kosta Tsipis, "The Nuclear Electromagnetic Pulse," Report #19. Program in Science and Technology for International Security, Cambridge, MA, March 1988, p.3. 2. Glasstone, Samuel and Phillip J. Dolan, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Department of the Army, Washington D. C., 1977, pp. 353-54

Quote Reply

vfrickey RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 12/4/2003 10:51:02 AM

It seems to me that nuclear weapons are of a different order altother, and in fact the ONLY true WMD, and to mix the three is not fruitful. In many foreign policy discussions these days, WMD frame the debate because they are supposed to be a new and destabilizing threat to the world order and to the notion of nation states, and their existence engenders changes in our whole foreign policy. But bio weapons have been around for centuries and chemical weapons have been around for a century at least. Nation states did just fine with these in existence, and as far as I can tell their proliferation is not really a new threat, either; developing chem weapons in particular does not seem to be that high tech. OTOH, nuclear changes the game of nations completely. Put suitcase nuclear weapons into the stream of international commerce and the whole thing collapses instantly. Unleash a chemical or bio weapon attack -- even a competent one -- in Washington DC and the govt slows but does not stop, and it adapts. Seal the windows and vaccinate. Detonate a nuke and we've got martial law at the very least and at worst national dissolution. There's just no comparison, IMO. Going around the world on a hunt for rogue states developing chem and bio weapons seems like just an excuse to exercise military power. OTOH going around the world seeking loose nukes seems a matter of national survival. Opinions anyone

Quote Reply

Final Historian RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 12/4/2003 11:12:13 AM

vfrickey, if someone developed an airborne strain if Ebola, tens of millions could die. Its a quick killer. If they could make it so the symptoms were delayed for a few weeks, then many more people could, would die from such a strain than a nuclear strike. Bio-weapons are a WMD because they can kill many, long after they were first released. An airborne strain of AIDS could destroy mankind. They are that deadly. Smallpox killed millions, the plague killed millions. And that was not during an global world. As for chemical weapons, the fear is that they are not nearly as traceable as nukes, or even bio weapons. They can be made the easiest, and some of them have long lasting effects. Plus, they can still be effective in small numbers. VX and Sarrin, if potent enough, could easily kill thousands in a packed space. Think stadium or convention center. And they are far easier to smuggle in than nukes.

Quote Reply

vfrickey RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 12/4/2003 11:45:10 AM

Paul asked: "Opinions anyone?" As I mentioned in a previous reply, nukes are in the "special weapons" category because of their capacity to injure and kill not only by inflicting gross physical trauma but also systemic injury through radiation. The old term for special weapons, "CBR," (for "chemical, biological, and radiological") makes this point clearer in people's minds - and it also covers both nuclear and radiological weapons. (radiological weapons are non-nuclear explosives designed to scatter radioactive material through an area and inflict injury solely through radiation; they are also a terror weapon in that the psychological trauma connected with their use is often worse than the actual health effects). "It seems to me that nuclear weapons are of a different order altother, and in fact the ONLY true WMD, and to mix the three is not fruitful." That's only because we haven't seen biological warfare using highly communicable agents, yet. While it is not generally believed to be the result of actual BW, the way in which West Nile Virus spread throughout the country over the past few years resembles what a real BW offensive against the US would look like - a highly contagious virus with an insect or other ubiquitous vector, popping up in several widely - scattered parts of the country, usually near transportation hubs such as large cities and port facilities. The main evidence that West Nile wasn't BW is its relative lack of virulence - most people who catch it don't even realize anything is wrong - they quietly seroconvert, develop a transient headache, sometimes a few other mild neurological symptoms and then recover. But confer the infectivity of West Nile on, say, hantavirus or Ebola (more on that later) and you have a considerably more lethal virus capable of moving through the populace rapidly, with an insect vector. A nightmare more lethal than even the detonation of a nuclear weapon, after it's finished burning through the American heartland. "In many foreign policy discussions these days, WMD frame the debate because they are supposed to be a new and destabilizing threat to the world order and to the notion of nation states, and their existence engenders changes in our whole foreign policy. " Those changes have been overdue for years, anyway. The US Government decided to see how much it would cost to furnish a laboratory with off-the-shelf equipment to culture and weaponize biological warfare agents (using harmless simulant germs which require the same care in preparation) and discovered that for $10.000 -15,000, it could be done. This being the case, it seems stupid to wait for a SECOND biological warfare attack before using our military and diplomatic power to resolve the issue. "But bio weapons have been around for centuries and chemical weapons have been around for a century at least. Nation states did just fine with these in existence, and as far as I can tell their proliferation is not really a new threat, either; developing chem weapons in particular does not seem to be that high tech. " The lack of major casualties from chemical or biological weapons since World War I (in which chemical AND biological weapons were both used; chemical weapons having a dramatic effect on troops on both sides) is largely dumb luck. Hitler had large amounts of extremely effective nerve agents at his disposal, and could probably have made the landings at Normandy impossible by using them - but he had an innate dislike for chemical weapons as such, one of the few points on which he and his generals agreed wholeheartedly. When one considers the death toll which occurred in Sverdlovsk (renamed "Ekaterinburg" after the fall of the Soviet Union) which resulted from an accidental leak of weaponized anthrax from a weapons lab, it's clear that had that agent ever been deployed on purpose, the casualties and resulting panic would have approached those following the detonation of a small nuclear weapon. Perhaps most of the deaths would have occurred longer after the event with anthrax, but they would have happenned. "OTOH, nuclear changes the game of nations completely. Put suitcase nuclear weapons into the stream of international commerce and the whole thing collapses instantly." In which case, it ought to have happenned by now. According to the former Russian minister of defense Aleksander Lebed, up to fifty suitcase bombs in the 5 to 50 kiloton range are missing from their nuclear inventory, and have been since the mid-1990s. You have to assume that at least some of them are already moving around in the black market. "Unleash a chemical or bio weapon attack -- even a competent one -- in Washington DC and the govt slows but does not stop, and it adapts. Seal the windows and vaccinate." Unless the chemical or biological agent is so toxic or virulent that it keeps everyone buttoned up in their homes and apartments for weeks or months. In that case, it's clear that government WOULD stop. The anthrax offensive of 2001 was a weak, badly bungled attempt at BW. A bursting charge scattering a hundred kilos of weaponized BW agent from, say, the top of the Washington Monument would close the District of Columbia for several months. And if the weaponized anthrax, or say, plague came from Biopreparat, it would contain several immunologically different strains of the pathogen as well as plasmids for multiple antibiotic resistance. Does anyone seriously believe that Biopreparat is so secure that such a BW agent hasn't already been smuggled out and sold for eating money by a desperate biologist? "Detonate a nuke and we've got martial law at the very least and at worst national dissolution." Some people would argue that 9/11 and the anthrax attacks have pushed us close to both, no nuclear arms required. "There's just no comparison, IMO. Going around the world on a hunt for rogue states developing chem and bio weapons seems like just an excuse to exercise military power." You say that as though it were a bad thing. :-) Seriously, it's better IMHO to start exercising that sort of power prematurely than AFTER we've been hit too hard to make rational decisions on the matter. Now we have several real-world models of how to go looking for WMD in other countries. When the issue comes up again, we've already learned what works and what doesn't - and jawing for six months over whether to enter a rogue nation which probably has WMD doesn't work. Either do it, or don't, but don't bring it up before the UN Security Council - where three permanent members, Russia, France, and China, are leading gray market suppliers of nuclear technology to would-be nuclear weapons states. The foxes OWN the henhouse at the UN. "OTOH going around the world seeking loose nukes seems a matter of national survival." It'll take a major release of anthrax, pneumonic plague, high-level radwaste, or perhaps a deadly and persistent chemical agent like dioxin or others I won't mention because they're deadlier and easier to make by individuals before people realize that ALL special weapons represent real and urgent threats to our national security.

Quote Reply

vfrickey RE:Why is N included with the B and C? 12/4/2003 12:14:53 PM

Final Historian said: "vfrickey, if someone developed an airborne strain if Ebola, tens of millions could die. Its a quick killer. If they could make it so the symptoms were delayed for a few weeks, then many more people could, would die from such a strain than a nuclear strike. Bio-weapons are a WMD because they can kill many, long after they were first released. " You're preaching to the choir, buddy. I've said what you have for many years - that we've not even seen the tip of the iceberg where WMD are concerned. Human ingenuity is probably capable of largely ridding the planet of human life - which nuclear weapons are not capable of doing, despite the all the talk about "nuclear winter" in the 1980s. The scary thing is that so far, FOUR times a strain of Ebola which is both highly communicable in the air - as far as they can tell, it spreads by droplet mode, like the common cold - has been brought into the United States with monkeys from the same place - Ferlite Farms in the Phillipines. The first time it happened was in Reston, Virginia - easy driving distance to the Capitol. If Ebola reston had been as deadly in man as it was in crab-eating monkeys, Washington DC might have looked like a scene from the movie "Outbreak." But after the US Army contained the initial Ebola reston outbreak, the government allowed imports of monkeys from Ferlite Farms to continue, resulting in three additional outbreaks of Ebola reston in the US - once more at Reston, once at the Charles River facility near Boston, and once in Texas. In the second Reston outbreak, there were indications that the virus had mutated to an even more communicable variety. In total, four workers at the affected Reston facility contracted Ebola reston - at least one man suffered a supposedly unrelated heart attack shortly after exposure. We were lucky four times. We know that Ebola reston doesn't cause serious illness in humans - yet. We also know that Ebola reston mutates and that these mutations sometimes alter the clinical course of infections in crab-eating monkeys, in which it is (as far as can be determined) always fatal. We don't know whether it can mutate into a strain capable of killing people. And we also know that an Al-Qaeda affiliate group, Abu Sayyaf, is located in the Phillipines and has murdered Americans in the past. Motive and opportunity - is anyone out there willing to state that Al-Qaeda would willingly pass up the chance to collect samples from Ferlite Farms and start work on a highly transmissible Ebola strain that DOES kill humans? Such an Ebola strain would make a 20 megaton nuke look like a popgun. It could circle the world like SARS had, and if it is as virulent as Ebola zaire, nineteen out of twenty people who caught it would die.

Quote Reply

Pages: 1 2

	News As History - August 21, 2008
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us