DarkBronzePlant

That's fair.

Henry-Finland

I also think that what Cap'n Jack wrote in the, (so far), last post was a very good answer.

Loren
If women give birth to babies withouth arms, I have no idea if the "poison" is chemical or biological.
But I think You are right, I should have written chemical, I think.
Or not?

But do You think it matters and for whom does it matter?
Just asking.

Henry

Henry-Finland

Loren
You were right. The Deutsche Welle says clearly that it was chemical, and afterwards it "builds up in the food chain".

Whatta relief, I already paniced it would have been biological...

Henry

Ion

Right:

let's 'explain' with "...a dictionary!" and "...believed safe...";
close the eyes on consequences.

Cap'n Jack

I can't find "Agent Orange" in the dictionary either.

Here is an article about the use of the chemical substances during the Moscow theatre hostage crisis.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/russia/art...823024,00.html

It was a good idea, put ultimately prooved to be harmful and in some cases lethal, as is the case with Agent Orange.

uhcord

try here for a definition

Coleman Smith

Henry-Finland said, �All biological or chemical weapons are dirty, because there is no way to target the enemy. The user of these are just targeting people en masse.
The ironic aspect is that the only people that are ready for such a blow is the enemy soldiers. �

The experience in the WW I with chemical weapons is that they did not produce mass civilian casualties.

As I said in a prior post on this subject:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It�s been a while since chemical weapons were used in mass in a war. I believe their last significant use was in WW I in the trenchers. I do not remember mass civilian casualties associated with that episode.

Hussein targeted civilians with a mustard gas attack and of course the targeting of civilians with any weapon system is considered to be immoral by most countries.

Perhaps you could provide a citation referring to significant numbers of civilian casualties in the battlefield.

Hussein used them against Iran with nominal effect and with out reports of mass civilian casualties.

I went through some CBR (Chem-Bio. Radiological) training in the58-59 and I am sure there gave been significant changes since then.

The prevailing military view at that time is that they are of nominal use because of the difficulty and high labor cost associated with their deployment and application. The force that uses them has to invest heavily in training and defensive equipment.

This forces the opposition to heavily invest in defense equipment and training and the application of defense gear in high temperature environments degrades performance.

War always has an economic dimension and forcing the opposition to adopt expensive counter measures was an effective tactic in the cold war. We essentially out spent the Soviets and the competition contributed to their collapse.

There are other considerations associated with chemical warfare.

1. Maintaining a fatally toxic concentration in an open environment with even a small wind is difficult.
2. Predicting the chemical route of drift is problematic.
3. The use of persistent agents denies the use of captured equipment and territory to the friendlies and well as the enemy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The old fashion chlorine and Phosgene gases of WW I have certain advantages over modern persistent nerve agents because they are cheap, non-persistent and are made from readily available industrial processes in rail car volumes. They are non-persistent so once they have been applied friendly forces can occupy the newly acquired territory and put the weapons abandoned by the enemy to good use.

Prevalent objections to chemical weapons on moral grounds include the fact that some agents cause horrible protracted suffering before the enemy succumbs. With phosgene and Chlorine the victim generally drowns in his own body fluids as the lining of the lungs degrades to the point that it no longer functions.


Coleman Smith


Material Safety Data Sheet: Phosgene (PDA)
http://www.boc.com/gases/pdf/msds/G067.pdf

Toxicty Phosgene
http://www.emedicine.com/emerg/topic849.htm

Industrial Uses of Phosgene

http://www.c-f-c.com/specgas_products/phosgene.htm

Chlorene

http://pearl1.lanl.gov/periodic/elements/17.html

Mustard Gas
http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Chemistr...rd/mustard.htm

Sarin Nerve gas
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/7050/

Nerve Gas used in Northern Iraq on Kurds
http://www.phrusa.org/research/chemi...miraqgas2.html

VX Gas

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/vx/vxc/frames.htm

Loren Pechtel

The dictionary reference was in regard to the use of the word "biological".

Misso

That's because in WW I it was used very locally, just on the battlefield. Agent Orange, however, was not restricted to the battlefield and was sprayed all over the country. Logically, this kills (more) citizens.

Oh come on. How can anything that burns away plants be considered "safe"? Or was common sense not introduced untill the seventies?

Loren Pechtel

Agent Orange was and is safe. The problem comes from impurities left over from manufacturing.