jball@aluxe.UUCP (08/10/83)
Title: Amorphous Deterrence with Dioxin 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