Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bradclark1
Quote:
|
There is no publicly known weapons system that can deliver enough chemical material to directly kill more than ten - one hundred thousand people* as a result of chemical exposure in one use** of the weapon.
|
You are applying your own definition of what constitutes a large number of people and what kind of delivery in one use makes a WMD.
300 chemical artillery rounds fired in one location is " A" weapon of mass destruction.
The term WMD's first recorded use was the bombing of a town of 5,000 during the Spanish civil war in 1937.
What was found after the invasion was old and useless. It couldn't be termed a WMD. If the coalition had found just one modern up to date container of a chemical/biological or nuclear weapon Bush's reasons for invasion would have been vindicated. None were found. |
OK, lets go step, by step here...
You said:
"You are applying your own definition of what constitutes a large number of people and what kind of delivery in one use makes a WMD."
Yes, I was. However, to quote myself:
"where ever you draw the line between destruction and mass destruction, a chemical weapon is only a WMD if it is effective enough to cause mass" destruction." "
You said:
"300 chemical artillery rounds fired in one location is "A" weapon of mass destruction."
"The term WMD's first recorded use was the bombing of a town of 5,000 during the Spanish civil war in 1937."
That's a bit like saying 3,000,000 knife wielding men is a weapon of mass destruction. Clearly not the case. A weapon of mass destruction is denoted by the destruction a single weapon used once does. Its possible to kill millions if you have 3,000,000 knife wielding men and a good opportunity. That does not make it a WMD at all.
There is a big difference between mass destruction as seen at Gernika, Spain and a weapon of mass destruction as seen at Hiroshima.
If the term was used at Gernika, then it's meaning has significantly changed.
You said:
"What was found after the invasion was old and useless."
No, chemical weapons where used with effect by Iraq against it's own people. Not a WMD, but not useless either.
Gah, talk about getting weighed down in definitions.
How ever you describe concepts, it is the concept, not the word that counts.