jball@mhuxh.UUCP (08/05/83)
Title: Second Amendment Aviation
From: Jim Ballard, BTL RD30 A217
Date: 4 August 1983
Path: mhuxh!/jball
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin has a unique arms control
potential as an ultracheap, property violence, strategic weapon
available to a great many people of every political persuasion.
300-500 pounds of dioxin could do trillion dollar damage to any
city in the world sprayed uninterdictably from a low-flying, twin
engine plane at night.
Governments and paramilitary groups seeking control of government
could not afford to use dioxin as their concern would be holding or
acquiring property, would have to join the environmentalists in opposing
weapons use of dioxin. They would claim that use of dioxin would
violate the Geneva Convention Against (anti-personnel) Chemical
Weapons, although neither in intent nor effect would dioxin be
an anti-personnel weapon. Ordinary folk, however, noting that
that is no such thing as a treaty to kill people, although there
can be misinterpretation of treaties, could, under the Second
Amendment right to keep and bear arms, engage in dioxin deterrence
against any and all campaigns of organized lethal violence and
preparation for such campaigns.
Dioxin is obtained easily by heating the sodium or potassium
salt of 2,4,5-trichlorophenol to its boiling point and beyond in the
presence of copper. There are no transport restrictions on 2,4,5-tri-
chlorophenol nor its salts. Yeild is about 39%. 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
is usually available for 12 dollars per kilogram or less. Twin-engine
instrument licenses cost $7,000. Plane rental and modification would
probably cost about $5,000 and another 2K to 5K for infra-red equipment
for low-level night flight. So the cost to an American to completely
destroy, say, Havana, Cuba, or San Salvador, El Salvador, or Managua,
Nicaragua, or the capital of Honduras which is virtually unspellable,
would be about $15,000 to $20,000. One can assume the capability, astutely
used could have a dramatically chilling effect upon the campaigns
of lethal violence in Central America...and elsewhere.
Presumably one would write ultimatums with a trade-off between
casualties and acres destroyed by dioxin: for every 5.3 people murdered
one acre of land would be destroyed by dioxin in the theater of war
and for every 14.5 victims one acre of land of the prime military
weapons supplier would be destroyed and so forth, for example. Perhaps
the first offense would result in the destruction of pastureland -
dioxin bombardment would kill grazing animals - so the belligerents
would know beyond doubt that if a city is bombed it will be uninhabitable.
Second offenses could result in destruction of army camps, and third
offenses urban real estate.
I am very seriously interested in this matter, and while I have
not yet bought a 250Kg drum of trichlorophenol nor started flying lessons,
I am very seriously considering doing so and have begun search for an attorney
to help with the legal implications which I know, as a former federal
grand juror, are astounding. Comments or joint effort would be
welcome.
J.M.Ballard
Quality Control