WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION Found in Iraq

[MMMMMM]

"If Iraqi's want freedom and self determination they should fight for it."

But this conflicts wholly with your own stated view in this thread: Iraqis fighting to be liberated from Saddam would inevitably kill some innocent people, which, according to you, is immoral and unacceptable--even if it ends up saving a greater number of lives and removing a terrible tyrant.

[ACPlayer]

The two situations are not morally equivalent. Even you know that.

We invade for "strategic" purposes (basically money) hiding behind a facade of humanitarianism vs a people who are trying to free themselves.

One is Murder the other is Self Defense. .

[MMMMMM]

From the perspective of the victims, it makes no difference.

You are conflating issues.

[nicky g]

Somewhere in this thread I wrote that the Sarin shell was more interesting news than the expired mustard gas shell (as to all intents and purposes expired weapons are no more us than destoryed ones) if it was still active (ie hadn't deteriorated), but I wasn't sure if this were the case. According to this post on Open Democracy, it was almost certainly an old expired weapon:

[ QUOTE ]
Several reports (e.g. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3722855.stm) suggest that the artillery shell containing sarin which exploded in Baghdad was of a binary design, i.e. it contained two relatively non-toxic components which are mixed after firing of the round to form sarin. This is extremely unlikely as, while it is true that Iraq had developed a binary system for the production of nerve agents - such as Sarin, their process involved loading and mixing the chemicals before launching the weapon. Their system was designed for use in aerial bombs and missile warheads and was not readily applicable for use in artillery rounds of this type.

It is also extremely unlikely that the shell had been recently filled with sarin, as artillery shells of this design are filled via the "burster well" - the hole at the top of the shell where the burster charge and fuze are inserted. After filling the shell the steel "burster tube" - the tube into which the explosive charge will later be inserted - must be fitted and pressed home with a hydraulic press. To do this requires special facilities and this, in combination with the extreme toxicity of sarin and its high volatility, means that it is not something that could readily be done in a makeshift local facility or workshop.

It is almost certain, therefore, that the shell was, as described in several reports, left over from Iraq's pre-1991 stocks. Iraqi sarin was impure and unstabilised and tended to degrade in a matter of weeks. In a sealed artillery shell many complex degradation reactions would occur and very little, if any, sarin would remain after all this time. This probably explains why the exposed soldiers appear not have suffered any serious harm. They would have noticed the distinctive ester smell of decomposed sarin and the acid vapours present would more than likely have affected their eyes.

Iraq frequently did not mark its chemically filled rounds so it is quite possible that those who decided to use it as part of an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) had no idea what it contained.

[Ron Manley served with the UN commission in Iraq responsible for the technical oversight of Unscom’s operations (1991-94). From 1993-2001, he worked at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), ultimately as director of its verification division (2000-2001). See his interview with openDemocracy "Iraq and chemical weapons: a view from the inside", 10 July 2003 http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates...articleId=1351 ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Sarin in Iraq

[MMMMMM]

Just a sidenote, Nicky: yesterday Neal Boortz wrote that "we learned" something on his show the day before regarding Sarin (I presume this means he had someone knowledgable or expert on to discuss the matter). He went on to write that the amount of (pre-mix) Sarin in that shell--4 liters--is enough Sarin to kill 60,000 people. If that's anywhere close to the truth, maybe it will give you another way to look at how effective poison gas shells can be in warfare and why they might legitimately be classified as WMD.

[nicky g]

If it's true that firing that one shell over a densely populated area could kill that many people, then I;ll change my opinion on chemical weapons not being WMDs. I'm pretty sure that isn;t true of mustard gas.

[MMMMMM]

It surprised me too; I don't know how true it is, though. The newer nerve gases like VX though are WAY more powerful than mustard gas. Also, maybe that figure means if that amount of Sarin were perfectly adminitered to 60,000 people. If a fired shell could kill even a substantial fraction of that number, though, these things are not mere conventional weapons, especially since they can be fired in a pattern to blanket a large area with gas.

[nicky g]

Well I certainly agree they're not conventioanl weapons. I don;t know that they should be put alongside nukes though.