Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > I thought the US had no chemical/biological weapons?

I thought the US had no chemical/biological weapons?
Thread Tools
AKcrab
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 05:32 AM
 
Army to destroy deadly nerve gas
After years of controversy, workers will begin chemically neutralizing 1,269 tons of the ultra-deadly nerve agent VX this summer as part of a plan to eliminate the nation's chemical weapons stockpile.

"One drop the size of George Washington's eye on a quarter is enough to kill a healthy, 180-pound male. It's the most lethal chemical on the planet,"
1,269 TONS!?

     
undotwa
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 05:49 AM
 
Originally posted by AKcrab:
Army to destroy deadly nerve gas


1,269 TONS!?

The US never denied it did. It has been trying to destroy it ever since the end of the cold war.
In vino veritas.
     
AKcrab  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 06:06 AM
 
Originally posted by undotwa:
The US never denied it did. It has been trying to destroy it ever since the end of the cold war.
Ahhh.. We just didn't have the technology.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 06:44 AM
 
Originally posted by AKcrab:
Ahhh.. We just didn't have the technology.
No. It just takes time to dispose of it safely. It's not the kind of stuff you dump in the nearest landfill.
     
AKcrab  (op)
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Wasilla, Alaska
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 06:53 AM
 
You're right, it's not the kind of stuff you should have at all.

I see that it wasn't until 1996 we decided to go ahead and ratify the treaty. Eight years later and we start actually doing something.

I just can't fathom that we have the balls to invade a country over WMD's and we've got TONS of chemical weapons still sitting around "in rusty barrels".
     
Dr.HermanG.
Senior User
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 07:22 AM
 
We also have this ability to change our leaders regularly so that if we don't like what the current ones are doing we can vote in different ones.

The police do have the right to go in someone's house and take a dangerous weapons cache despite the fact that the police themselves are armed as well.
     
SimeyTheLimey
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Alexandria, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 07:35 AM
 
Originally posted by AKcrab:
You're right, it's not the kind of stuff you should have at all.

I see that it wasn't until 1996 we decided to go ahead and ratify the treaty. Eight years later and we start actually doing something.

I just can't fathom that we have the balls to invade a country over WMD's and we've got TONS of chemical weapons still sitting around "in rusty barrels".
We have been over this again and again. First, separate out whether you are talking about chemical, or biological weapons. The US renounced bio weapons unilaterally back in 1969. Othr countries (especially the Soviet Union) didn't follow. But since you are myopically focussed on the US, that's is the situation.

However, we, and more broadly, NATO kept chemical weapons as a deterrent against the Warsaw Pact. You might recall something that used to exist called the cold war. Or maybe you were asleep in history class when that was covered?

During the Cold War, Warsaw Pact battle plans and doctrine included massive chemical weapons attacks on troops and airfields in Western Europe as part of any invasion. Had the Soviets invaded, they would have used them in enormous quantities to kill soldiers, and hamper the defense of western Europe. That was a genuine fear at the time, and the basis of assumption in the West. The idea of NATO having stocks with which to retaliate was to prevent the Soviets from using them on us out of fear we would use them on them. And in case you think that is crazy, remember that it worked in World War II. Both sides had chemical weapons, but neither side used them. The only place they were used was by Italy in Abyssinia, and Japan in China. Neither China nor Abyssinia had the means to retaliate.

Once the cold war ended, though, the decision was made to seek a multilateral convention to eliminate all chemical weapons. The US made the unilateral decision to withdraw chemical weapons from active service before the convention was signed. A multilateral convention takes years to negotiate. Then after signature, it has to be ratified. Negotitation, signature, and ratification in only about 5 years is actually very fast. But that doesn't really matter. What is really driving disarmament is the reality that we don't feel we need them any more because the Soviet Union is gone. That's why we are burning them as fast as can be done without causing a huge ecological disaster.

The situation with Iraq was different. Absent a treaty saying otherwise, it isn't illegal to have chemical weapons. But it is illegal (since 1929) to use chemical weapons. Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and Iraqi civilians. It also threatened to use them in the first Gulf War against its neighbors. After that, the United Nations forbade Iraq to have them, and Iraq agreed to those terms when it sued for peace. Nobody thinks that the UN made a wrong decision on that. Russia, France, Germany, and China may havee disagreed with the invasion, but they did not disagree that Saddam proved himself too unstable to play with toys that lethal.
( Last edited by SimeyTheLimey; Jun 10, 2004 at 07:45 AM. )
     
Tokencon
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 07:54 AM
 
Originally posted by AKcrab:
Army to destroy deadly nerve gas
1,269 TONS!?
\\

Well, you thought wrong. The US has long had a very strong ABC warfare program (kept secret for what should be obvious reasons) throughout the Cold War in response to intell that the USSR was engaging in same. Duh. And you are probably incapable of understanding this, but just as it took DECADES to decommission all the tanks and aircraft from WWII, it's taking TIME to get rid of all that stuff now that we don't need it. What do you suggest, they sell nerve agents at auction so that surplus dealers can pass it on to the public at a profit?

Use your head. I find that always helps when thinking through these difficult issues.

Tokie
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 08:10 AM
 
Originally posted by AKcrab:
You're right, it's not the kind of stuff you should have at all.
No, but it was built a long time ago and never destroyed now. Argue the morality of building it all you want, but the fact is that it's there, it wasn't built by the current administration (or indeed, the administrations of any still-living President), and something needs to be done about it. The past may be terrible, but it cannot be undone. What matters is what we do with that past.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
Face Ache
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 08:59 AM
 
They could get the CIA to lose it in the mail system...
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 09:14 AM
 
Can someone help me with my timeline. Did the Gulf War end before or after the USA decided to get rid of its chemical and biological weapons? If the US hasn't had enough time to destroy their WMD, how come Iraq could ... not to mention Libya or South Africa.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 09:39 AM
 
They didn't destroy it Troll, they hid it within a country the size of California and a team of only 1,000 searching throughout in the hopes of finding it. I predict they'll locate it shortly before the elections in November.
ebuddy
     
Troll
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 10:38 AM
 
How could the UN demand that Iraq destroy its weapons within 8 years if it knew, based on the US experience, that it takes significantly longer to destroy them? Were they asking Iraq to do something that is impossible to do or could it be that the commitment to destroying in the US is lacking?

'Nother question, how come it takes the USA sooooo long to destroy their weapons when countries like Libya, South Africa and the Ukraine can do it much faster.
( Last edited by Troll; Jun 10, 2004 at 10:49 AM. )
     
Dr.HermanG.
Senior User
Join Date: May 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jun 10, 2004, 11:28 AM
 
Originally posted by Troll:
'Nother question, how come it takes the USA sooooo long to destroy their weapons when countries like Libya, South Africa and the Ukraine can do it much faster.
Because Libya, SA, or the Ukraine doesn't have the numbers of lawyers we do.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:14 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,