HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU (08/28/90)
From: HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU As none of the Western nations desire to fight among the oilfields and installations due to the enormous cost of replacing plant, what options are available except chemical weapons? The US, as far as I am aware went through a pantomine performance with (then Vice) President Bush agreeing to destroy all chemical weapons, but in reality storing ten percent of the stock in permanent form (or until all the other nations entirely dispose of their stocks :-) as binary agents. Furthermore, isn't the Western head shaking and hand wringing over the Iraqi use of chemical weapons more proof of the infectiousness of hypocrisy? Afterall, if Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon perhaps we should all have a post-prandial paraquat. Jerry Harper: Computer Science Dept, University College Dublin, Dublin 4,IRELAND harper@ccvax.ucd.ie
geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) (08/30/90)
From: geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) In article <1990Aug28.043142.404@cbnews.att.com> HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU writes: >As none of the Western nations desire to fight among the oilfields and >installations due to the enormous cost of replacing plant, what options >are available except chemical weapons? What about neutron bombs? Since the advantage of enhanced radiation weapons is that they can kill personnel while doing relatively little damage to the local infrastructure, I'd think they'd be ideally suited to that kind of fighting. Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.sun.com + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (09/02/90)
From: sun!sunburn.West.Sun.COM!gtx!qip!john (John Moore)
>From: HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
] Furthermore, isn't the Western head shaking and hand wringing over the
]Iraqi use of chemical weapons more proof of the infectiousness of
]hypocrisy? Afterall, if Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon perhaps we
]should all have a post-prandial paraquat.
I realize that this is verging on the political, but lets get some
facts straight:
Agent Orange was not sprayed to disable or kill troops. It was sprayed
as a defoliant. There is very little evidence that it is harmful,
even though a number of studies have been made of Vietnam Veterans
exposed to it. I have read a number of these studies and find them
quite convincing. The US Centers for Disease Control recently completed
a large study on the subject, and their report is available by a
phone call if you are a VietNam veteran. The executive summary is
available in any case (although I don't know about overseas shipment).
In my opinion, the executive summary is a good abstract of the
detailed report. I have both.
Thus to call Agent Orange a chemical weapon is incorrect in a military
sense. This is, after all, a military news group.
John Moore asuvax!anasaz!johnmilitary@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (09/02/90)
From: att!utzoo!henry >From: geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) >What about neutron bombs? Since the advantage of enhanced radiation weapons >is that they can kill personnel while doing relatively little damage to the >local infrastructure, I'd think they'd be ideally suited to [oilfield] >fighting. Nobody in his right mind is going to authorize use of anything nuclear in a relatively minor war. Everyone is better off if nuclear weapons continue to be seen as weapons of desperation only. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry