Al-Quaida Cell Caught With WMD in Jordan

[Shitoryu Dude]

Do a web search for "How to build an H bomb"

Nice little tongue in cheek primer for making your own nuclear device. Also explains how to get rid of pesky kids from next door and most likely kill yourself, but what the hell.

[Peter H.]

I don't deny that it is relatively easy to make, but why do it when it is easy enough to purchase. You lived in Del Rio, why set up a Meth lab there when a quick jaunt over the border has everything you need?

[Shitoryu Dude]

True enough, why go through the effort when it is cheaply available and already packaged? There were plenty of drugs floating around Del Rio and every bit of it came across the bridge two miles away - they never busted anyone on the US side of the river for more than possession.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Peter H.
I'll disagree with you on that. The last report Hans Blix made, Iraq could not/would not account for all the chemical/biological weapons and agents that had been discovered during the initial inventory post Desert Storm. Then, with all the US military equip roaming around that we sold to "allies" who handed it to others or we just lost track of, I find it hard to believe that some of our own stockpiles aren't in the wrong hands.

1) Define "All the chemical/biological weapons and agents." Many of these substances were precursors-needed for making weapons, but not weapons in and of themselves;it's also the opinion of most in the weapons community that a majority of these agents were destroyed.

2)Well, "allies" all too often winds up being "all the other countries that hate us." AS far as I know, though, we've never made the mistake of selling chemical weapons to anyone.....except, perhaps, Saddam Hussein.

3) The U.S. is currently in the process of destroying its entire stockpile of chemical weapons. The contents and whereabouts of this stockpile are almost completely declassified, and well guarded. The U.S. chemical weapons stockpile consists of 30,599.55 tons of unitary (single component) agent and 680.19 tons of binary components.You can read about its disposition here, here and here.

The chief threat in terms of chemical weapons from terrorists lies in the easy availability of precursor agents, and the relatively limited dangers posed to those who choos e to make and deploy them. I could go down to True Value Hardware or a Pool Supply store and whip up something capable of killing hundreds or even thousands of people, and all I'd have to do to increase the scale would be buy wholesale.The likelihood of purchase from anywhere but criminal elements in the former Soviet Republics or from sympathetic Arab or Islamic countries is also very slim.

[Vapour]

They are not that easy to make. It only easily available in somre dodgey corner of the globe. It is pain in the arse to transport and keep, and most imortantly, it is far difficult to *deploy* in non military cotnext. Lot of people can simply avoid fatalities by simply walking away. Something that doesn't happen with conventional bomb. Chemical weapon don't casue *mass destruction* like nuclear weapon does. Sure, it could casue large number of casualities if it is employed in large quantity in very heavily populated (and confied) area but so does the conventional bomb.

One should worry more about availability of cheap fartilizer. We had one by IRA in our town and entire shopping block got decimated. No fatalities, thanks to the warning.

[tellner]

When I was buying fertilizer (some years back) the manufacturers had already started to coat it with agents to make the production of ANFO explosives more difficult. Now, chicken guano and nitric acid is another thing altogether. The amount of nitrates a chicken farm can produce is awe inspiring. Of course, if you start buying large quantities of nitric acid Three Letter Agencies are going to start paying calls on you.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Vapour
They are not that easy to make. It only easily available in somre dodgey corner of the globe. It is pain in the arse to transport and keep, and most imortantly, it is far difficult to *deploy* in non military cotnext. Lot of people can simply avoid fatalities by simply walking away.

Kinda depends upon what "it" you're talkin' about, don't it?

If "it" were sarin, you could just buy some pesticide and a few other things, and....hell...deploy "it" in a conventional device. Or spray "it" into the ventilation system of a building.Or suicidally release "it" in a myriad of ways. If "it" were pure teflon, you could just burn"it" .

You get the idea.

[Vapour]

hmmm, It's almost like saying that you only need knowledge of highschool science to *make* nuclear weapon. Theoretically true, in practice. no.

Conventional weapon is cheaper, easier to make, safer to store and much simpler to deploy. And it can easily kill more people. And the best part is that you know what it is going to happen. With chemical weapon, you wouldn't know wether any bit of your plan works or not.

You can come up with all sort of possibility about ventilation system, or use of small airplanes for spraying or whatever. I'm quite sure anyone organisation which can pull it off is top notch. I mean walk-off factor is the biggest disadvantage so they really have to find a way to *pump it rather than dispersing it.

But I would be more scared if such well organised terrorist groups decided to use conventional bomb intead.

[Mekugi]

Originally posted by Vapour
...anyway, chemical weapon is not really weapon of mass *destruction*.

REALLY? I guess that depends on your definition. Lets look at the 2002 definition released by the "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction" :

"Weapons of mass destruction (WMD)--nuclear, biological, and chemical--in the possession of hostile states and terrorists ."

It is also noteworthy to include missiles capable of reaching countries foreign to their origin.

Notice they added "in the possesion of hostile states and terrorists to this, a way to get out of saying that we have weapons of mass destruction as well.

[Vapour]

Ah, just linguistic. Chemical weapon doesnt' cause *destruction*. Nuclear weapon does. I do grant that Napalm is a good one but that one's usage is more akin to conventional one.

If someone decided to categorised bilogical, chemical and nuclear as one type for legal reason, that is that. I would say *mass destruction* wasn't the right choice of words though. You wouldn't call influeza a desease of mass destruction, do you. But if some authority decided to term it, that is that.

[elder999]

Originally posted by Vapour
You wouldn't call influeza a desease of mass destruction, do you. But if some authority decided to term it, that is that.

Actually, there is an effort to make the genome of the 1918 infuenza strain classified information to prevent it's use as a "weapon of mass destruction."

You can destroy people, ya' know.....

[Soulend]

Originally posted by Vapour
I do grant that Napalm is a good one but that one's usage is more akin to conventional one.

Probably because napalm is a conventional weapon, nothing more than the modern version of the 'Greek Fire' used in antiquity. The term 'napalm' is no longer used though, as someone decided 'fire bomb' sounds more PC and thus presumably less horrifying.

[Vapour]

ah, it actuall fall under chemical weapon. It does't fall under gassing type. To add it further, the U.S. does not use the chemical mixture known as napalm any more. The U.S. dues use an imporved mixture that has a number of similarities to napalm. To add further, Napalm is not a banned weapon but it's use against civilians is banned due to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Anyway, I'm just simply pointing out that fire and explosion usually do the best and the easiest work for causing large fatailities. I personally don't think linguistic or legal definition of chemicall weapon is that important. Fear of chemical weapon is overhyped. Nuclear weapon is another matter because it can cause massive amount of casualites, wanton destruction and long term enviromental hazard.

[Soulend]

Originally posted by Vapour
ah, it actuall fall under chemical weapon. It does't fall under gassing type.

Maybe by somebody, but certainly not by the U.S. military, just as FAE (fuel/air explosives) and incendiary grenades are not. Chemical weapons are classified as nerve agents, blister agents, blood agents, choking agents, and incapacitating agents. Napalm is none of these.

Originally posted by Vapour
To add it further, the U.S. does not use the chemical mixture known as napalm any more. The U.S. dues use an imporved mixture that has a number of similarities to napalm.

That's strange, as I mixed at least 150 gallons of it personally (not every day you get to play with napalm!) a little over a year ago. Looked and acted just like napalm to me, and causes the same headache when you mess with it for too long. It is nothing more than a gelling agent to which you add JP-5, JP-8, MOGAS, etc. So any improvement in the mixture must simply be a better gelling agent. It comes in precisely the same canister and detonates/ignites just the same as it did back in the old days.

http://www.ordnance.org/firebomb.htm

Originally posted by Vapour
To add further, Napalm is not a banned weapon but it's use against civilians is banned due to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Duh..the intentional use of any weapon against civilians is banned by the Fourth Geneva Convention...see Art 3(1)(a)

[Mekugi]

No, it's not linguistics per se, this is a definition. WMD are under the category of semantics, which is an element of linguistics; the way you have it here is really like saying that all vegitables are carrots.

ANYWAY
That close to the definition that the U.N.(bastards) has been using for some time as well. The filthy pox blankets the US gave to the Native American's at one time could also be a weapon of mass destruction. It was a weapon, and it destoyed the masses.
-R

Originally posted by Vapour
Ah, just linguistic. Chemical weapon doesnt' cause *destruction*. Nuclear weapon does. I do grant that Napalm is a good one but that one's usage is more akin to conventional one.

If someone decided to categorised bilogical, chemical and nuclear as one type for legal reason, that is that. I would say *mass destruction* wasn't the right choice of words though. You wouldn't call influeza a desease of mass destruction, do you. But if some authority decided to term it, that is that.