Merry Christmas

Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search


or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl


Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the IAEA,
AEC, NRC, etc.

The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my MOS is
74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Specialist.
(recently re-organized from 54B)

Did that briefly in the Air Force (1964-1968), and the term WMD wasn't
common. Anyone who thinks biological weapons aren't 'mass destruction'
needs a crutch for a broken brain.

Pudentame wrote:

Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes that
distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty.

I don't care how many rubes misuse the term.


"Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - Generally refers to chemical,
nuclear, biological agents or explosive devices."
http://www1.va.gov/emshg/apps/emp/emp/definitions.htm

"Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition
with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living
beings." --Wikipedia

I think you might think of terms that killing a human is destruction.
Killing a lot of them is mass destruction.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 15:25:15 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search

or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl


Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the IAEA,
AEC, NRC, etc.

The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my MOS is
74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) Specialist.
(recently re-organized from 54B)

"*I* know the correct meaning of words. Those rubes who use it with
other meanings are just wrong.
"WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!"
:-)

--
The Coney Island Polar Bear
Club hosted its annual New
Year's Day swim in the frigid
waters off New York City Monday.
It wasn't completely successful.
Paris Hilton and Britney Spears
came out of the water just as
drunk as when they went in.

Ken Weitzel wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Ken Weitzel wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Bill Funk wrote:
On Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:16:08 -0500, Pudentame
wrote:

Bill Funk wrote:

But SH did use a WMD on the Kurds in 1988.
And used them in the Iran-Iraq war before that, although
chemical/biological weapons are technically *not* weapons of mass
destruction.

That will be news to those who define Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...on&btnG=Search


or:

http://tinyurl.com/y4sbjl


Odd, I don't see the U.S. Army included among the references.
I don't, in fact, see any U.S. Government agency among the references.
Nor do I see any internationally recognized agency, such as the
IAEA, AEC, NRC, etc.

The definitions I use are the ones I learned in the U.S. Army; my
MOS is 74D - Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN)
Specialist. (recently re-organized from 54B)


Hi...

Google "used wmd". Lots of hits, you'll get tired of reading. They all
contain the words USA or America as the user and (if you count depleted
uranium) continue to unashamedly use to this day.

Ken



Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes
that distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty.

I don't care how many rubes misuse the term.

Hi...

Whose military gets to decide? The one doing the poisoning? Or the
one(s) being poisoned?

As for the term - google define wmd. Read in particular the one from
a highly renowned university in your own country. Surely you're not
about to suggest that they're rubes?

Take care.

Ken

The distinction in the definitions are from a STANAG - STandard NAto
AGreement... so everyone is using the same terminology & understands the
what each other mean. So the people most likely to have to deal with
them in the consequences of use.

For military purposes the difference is how those weapons affect the
battlefield. Generally the distinction is whether you can "continue the
mission" if attacked with the weapon. Nuclear weapons have significantly
greater effects (order of magnitude) on the ability of military forces
to maneuver, hold territory, engage the "enemy" and reach the military
objective than Chemical/Biological weapons.

Google provides a list of sites where a search term appears, not
definitions of the search terms themselves. Google does not
differentiate between sites using a term correctly and those that are not.

Many carelessly confuse the two. I don't.

Pudentame wrote:

The distinction in the definitions are from a STANAG - STandard NAto
AGreement... so everyone is using the same terminology & understands the
what each other mean. So the people most likely to have to deal with
them in the consequences of use.

For military purposes the difference is how those weapons affect the
battlefield. Generally the distinction is whether you can "continue the
mission" if attacked with the weapon. Nuclear weapons have significantly
greater effects (order of magnitude) on the ability of military forces
to maneuver, hold territory, engage the "enemy" and reach the military
objective than Chemical/Biological weapons.

Google provides a list of sites where a search term appears, not
definitions of the search terms themselves. Google does not
differentiate between sites using a term correctly and those that are not.

Many carelessly confuse the two. I don't.

WMD is generally (including in NATO, US forces and most everywhere else
defined as I stated in my other post.

""Research for this paper identified more than 40 different definitions
of WMD.29 Some of the definitions with official standing are identified
in appendix A (used in the U.S. executive branch), appendix B (enacted
into U.S. Federal law), appendix C (versions used internationally), and
appendix D (enacted into U.S. state laws). Almost all of the more than 40
definitions listed in the appendices fit into 1 of 5 alternative
definitions,
allowing for some slight variations in meaning.30
n WMD as a synonym for nuclear, biological, and chemical
(NBC) weapons31
n WMD as chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) weapons32
n WMD as CBRN and high explosive (CBRNE) weapons33
n WMD as weapons that cause massive destruction or kill large
numbers of people, and do not necessarily include or exclude
CBRN weapons34
n WMD as weapons of mass destruction or effect, potentially including
CBRNE weapons and other means of causing massive disruption,
such as cyberattacks.35""

http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Occassional_.../CSWMD/OP4.pdf
Refers.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Pudentame wrote:

snip


Google provides a list of sites where a search term appears, not
definitions of the search terms themselves. Google does not
differentiate between sites using a term correctly and those that are not.

Hi...

It sounds like you may not be aware of it, so on the off-chance I'm
right, you can get google to look for definitions only, like this, for
example...

define: wmd

and the only hits returned will be actual definitions. If I recall
correctly, the above example returned only (or about) 4.

Take care.

Ken

Alan Browne wrote:
Pudentame wrote:

Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes
that distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty.

I don't care how many rubes misuse the term.


"Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - Generally refers to chemical,
nuclear, biological agents or explosive devices."
http://www1.va.gov/emshg/apps/emp/emp/definitions.htm

"Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition
with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living
beings." --Wikipedia

I think you might think of terms that killing a human is destruction.
Killing a lot of them is mass destruction.

Cheers,
Alan

Destroying a lot of property can also be a definition of mass
destruction. Would it not be 'mass destruction' if a city like London
were destroyed, even if everyone was evacuated first?

Ron Hunter wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Pudentame wrote:

Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes
that distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty.

I don't care how many rubes misuse the term.



"Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - Generally refers to chemical,
nuclear, biological agents or explosive devices."
http://www1.va.gov/emshg/apps/emp/emp/definitions.htm

"Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a
munition with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of
living beings." --Wikipedia

I think you might think of terms that killing a human is destruction.
Killing a lot of them is mass destruction.

Cheers,
Alan

Destroying a lot of property can also be a definition of mass
destruction. Would it not be 'mass destruction' if a city like London
were destroyed, even if everyone was evacuated first?

Certainly. But Mr. P seems to believe that the killing of humans on a
grand numerical scale is not mass destruction. It certainly is. Back
in the 70/80's the US were contemplating a neutron bomb ("Enhanced
Radiation" weapon. A relatively small nuclear weapon designed to
release a lot of neutrons and not so much "mechanical" energy. The
intent is to kill people (all living things, actually) and to disable
electronics with the EMP. Infrastructure (cities, airports, etc.) would
not be destroyed or even mcuh damaged).

There is no way to not call this a WMD. Congress voted against the
weapon under political pressure (that doesn't mean they made the right
or wrong decision, it just means they made it for the wrong reasons, IMO).

(In physics, mass destruction is not possible, but it can be transformed
into energy ... and back).

You can google around and find all sorts of studies on gas dispertion
models and Pk associated with gas. It is definitely a WMD.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

"Alan Browne" wrote in message
...
Ron Hunter wrote:
Alan Browne wrote:

Pudentame wrote:

Poison gas is not a weapon of mass DESTRUCTION. The military makes that
distinction between mass destruction and mass casualty.

I don't care how many rubes misuse the term.



"Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) - Generally refers to chemical,
nuclear, biological agents or explosive devices."
http://www1.va.gov/emshg/apps/emp/emp/definitions.htm

"Weapon of mass destruction (WMD) is a term used to describe a munition
with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of living
beings." --Wikipedia

I think you might think of terms that killing a human is destruction.
Killing a lot of them is mass destruction.

Cheers,
Alan

Destroying a lot of property can also be a definition of mass
destruction. Would it not be 'mass destruction' if a city like London
were destroyed, even if everyone was evacuated first?

Certainly. But Mr. P seems to believe that the killing of humans on a
grand numerical scale is not mass destruction. It certainly is. Back in
the 70/80's the US were contemplating a neutron bomb ("Enhanced Radiation"
weapon. A relatively small nuclear weapon designed to release a lot of
neutrons and not so much "mechanical" energy. The intent is to kill
people (all living things, actually) and to disable electronics with the
EMP. Infrastructure (cities, airports, etc.) would not be destroyed or
even mcuh damaged).

There is no way to not call this a WMD. Congress voted against the weapon
under political pressure (that doesn't mean they made the right or wrong
decision, it just means they made it for the wrong reasons, IMO).

Yes....I always thought the neutron bomb was a good idea....Just kill the
people, but not destroy the rest of the city.....But they decided that
destruction of the city was one of the chief reasons why people thought war
was so horrible, so to eliminate that would make war too palatable......Of
course, that was before terrorists....Today, the terrorists would really go
for such a thing, since killing the people is exactly what will get them
into heaven, and those 72 virgins........

On Sun, 7 Jan 2007 17:44:36 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote:

Yes....I always thought the neutron bomb was a good idea....Just kill the
people, but not destroy the rest of the city.....But they decided that
destruction of the city was one of the chief reasons why people thought war
was so horrible, so to eliminate that would make war too palatable......Of
course, that was before terrorists....Today, the terrorists would really go
for such a thing, since killing the people is exactly what will get them
into heaven, and those 72 virgins........

The old, "Let's make war so horrible people will not stand for it"
idea.
A Dr. Richard Gatling had the same idea. Didn't work.

--
Hillary Clinton was sworn
into the Senate Thursday
with her hand on a Bible
which was held by her husband
Bill. You could see it was
an old dog-eared family Bible.
It still has the yellow
highlighting on the passages
that say oral sex is not adultery.