Redstate

The post said "Saddam" several times. Quit threadjacking and add something substantive - I've seen you do it before, so I know you're capable of actual contibution to the conversation.

Please prove me right.

and in reference to the earlier argument. As you'll recall, you wrote this:

Well, that's no big deal. Don't you remember the President's statement that Saddam had, among other WMDs, Botulinum Toxin, which is used here in the US, by Nancy Pelosi and others, in the form of Botox?

[...]

So, the bad guys are making chemical weapons in Iraq...chemical weapons are classified by the UN as WMDs...so there are WMDs in Iraq...wait. That can't be right. The reality-based community said they weren't.

Now, I can recognize your humor, but others took it upon themselves to delve into the abyss of the Saddam WMD debate. And as I wrote:

To use this recent find of weapons to support the claim that Saddam had WMD is presumptuous. These weapons could have come from anywhere (including Saddam) but it's premature to assume Saddam manufactured these weapons. He very well may have, but we just don't know yet. So I would hold off judgment until the facts come in, that's all.

So I will. We can now safely assume these weapons did not come from Saddam Hussein.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

...I would be slow indeed to argue that something like nitric acid or chlorine was a remnant of a Saddam-era stockpile.

It will be interesting to find out where these are coming from - where they are being manufactured, and by what means those who are attempting to use these dual-use products for illicit purposes.

Any guesses?

It's a pretty common chemical agent that has a lot of industrial uses. Who knows what goes on in the underworld of Baghdad.

"Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." -Mark Twain

You're partially right. It probably wasn't a remnant of a Saddam-era stockpile. Just about all of the nitric acid produced under Saddam has probably gone into the ground, through fertilizer. Nitric acid production is quite common -- 80% of all that is produced goes into fertilizer. 5% goes into making nylon. It's also used to make polyurethane (plastic). (to drop a link on the subject http://www.platinum.matthey.com/applications/chemical.html ) It's not dual-use. It's multi-use. None of the sensible uses of nitric acid involve spraying it on people as a weapon -- that's best left for, well, just about any other chemical.

Not even an insurgent would want to use nitric acid as a weapon. He'd want to use it to make explosives to use as a weapon. It would be more valuable in bomb form than acid form.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

"Not even an insurgent would want to use nitric acid as a weapon. He'd want to use it to make explosives to use as a weapon. It would be more valuable in bomb form than acid form."
Obviously, SOMEONE wants to use it as a chemical weapon rather than make weapons out of it. After the las tthread, this is exactly the kind of story I did Not expect to see. Maybe a bomb lab going bye-bye after someone did the wrong thing trying to make TNT or something similar. Not this. But this is what we have.

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge.
Retardation is an inability to correct that lack.
Stupidity is the conscious refusal to correct that lack.

If I were an insurgent? The pound of nitric acid. It could make dozens of pounds of non-C4 explosives...

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

Of course nothing wrong watching terrorists blow themselves up. I'd be willing to contribute materials for them to make Nitro Glycerin.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Why would they make that, when they could make nitrocellulose without worrying about blowing up, and a lot cheaper too?

You only have to worry about blowing yourself up when you start dealing with the obscenely powerful explosives. Go with a moderately good one and you're set.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

In that i would enjoy watching terrorists blow themselves up
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Fair enough, but the joke's core was "trying to make homemade bombs will cause them to die," which simply isn't true. Even jokes have a serious part to them.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

Never heard of "VOA News," and I'd like to make sure any update is accurate.

has more detail. VOA is Voice of America.

Theres a limited selection of type of weapon in use. If a weapon functions primarily by chemical means you have to call it a chemical weapon.

If someone throws nitric acid at you, you have been harmed by a chemical weapon. If you die because someone asphyxiates with nitrogen you have been killed chemically.

And to use your example if I took bleach and ammonia to generate chlorine you have been killed by a chemical weapon.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I agree with you Joli. I'm not sure about the asphyxiation one though. No real "reaction" going on. The problem really is a lack of reaction of oxygen and your blood. That might fit more in the physical (conventional) weapons area.

A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever. -John Adams

Of course I've been killed by a chemical weapon if you use bleach and ammonia -- you've just created mustard gas. I'll have to give you that one, since it would have hard to find someone that doesn't consider poison gas a chemical weapon. However, there's a big distinction between that and nitric acid.

"If someone throws nitric acid at you, you have been harmed by a chemical weapon." No, you've been burned by acid. There's a distinction there. If someone splashes you with bleach and makes your skin peel a bit it's not a chemical weapon attack.

"If you die because someone asphyxiates with nitrogen you have been killed chemically." No, you've been asphyxiated. You've been deprived of oxygen until you suffocated. Sure, there're chemicals at work, but chemicals are at work in firing off a bullet too. There's a difference, for another example, between using a poison gas which locks into nerve receptors to stop them from firing and thus paralyzing your diaphram, and not getting enough oxygen because someone stuffs a rag in your mouth and plugs your nose, or removes it from the air and makes you breathe only nitrogen. N2 (nitrogen gas) is inert, and calling it a chemical weapon in any situation is ludicrous. It's ~80% of the air you breathe.

If a weapon "operates chemically" and harms you it's a chemical weapon? TNT + fire = explosion "operates chemically." I don't see TNT being called a chemical weapon. Chemical reactions occur everywhere. Not all of them make chemical weapons.

"Chemical weapon" is a term which has very specific connotations and meanings. It is in general parliance devoted to poisonous weapons, especially when used in context of chem-bio-nuke weapons or WMD. In some circumstances it is used to describe chemicals designed for the purpose of inflicting large amounts of pain -- a common acid simply doesn't fit the bill.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

More specifically and tersely, my argument can be summed up thus:

Chemical weapon means a weapon that just so happens to be a chemical. Not a common chemical that just so happens to be used as a weapon in a specific instance.

When you talk about nations having "chemical weapons" you're not talking about the billions of barrels sitting in factories for making fertilizer, you're talking about their sarin gas stockpiles. Using "chemical weapon" in this context is abusing the term.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

To take your example would you say that barrels and barrels of phosgene used in plastics production constitute a chemical weapon ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Nope, but they're still far closer to it than nitric acid. If they're stored in the form of a mortar shell they sure would be.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

Through large cylinder in WWI, I guess that rules it out.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I'm well aware of phosgene's WWI use, as well as its use in mortar shells. It's a good example of a dual use chemical. Thus my characterization -- if the military's buying it, consider it a chemical weapon. Thanks for overspecifying, though.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

These were in the possession of terrorists.

So if terrorists are buying it, its what ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

As to the asphyxiation, the way you are killed is by the prevention of a chemical reaction.

TNT = Primary Kinetic energy as blast force. Fire would be a thermal weapon.

During WWII there was a German occupying force in France wiped out by thallium poisoning. How would you characterize that ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Thalium killing a german regiment is a nice example of chemical warfare with a substance which isn't a chemical weapon. Using rat poison to kill people. Quite clever. Doesn't make it a "chemical weapon" because "chemical weapon" has very specific connotations. Poisoning someone's drink isn't chemical warfare and isn't using chemical weapons. It's poisoning someone. Splashing someone with acid is just that; splashing them with acid.

"Chemical weapon" has an expanded meaning beyond just being a chemical that kills people, and using it in the wrong situation is a sign of alterior motives and bias, not objectivity. It's this kind of misuse which should be avoided -- and which is found within the initial post.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

Chemical weapon
-noun
chemical substances that can be delivered using munitions and dispersal devices to cause death or severe harm to people and animals and plants

If you surround a block of c4 with barrels of nitric acid you have made a chemical weapon.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

"has very specific connotations"

What part of "connotations" says "dictionary"? Oh yeah, none of it.

Connotation:
1 a : the suggesting of a meaning by a word apart from the thing it explicitly names or describes

Language functions on connotative meanings.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

Are those chemical weapons? They are adding it for the chemical effect, not because it makes great shrapnel. Seems to me something like rat poison could be classified as a chemical weapon. It all depends on the intent of the user.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Another example of just the point I'm trying to make! You don't go around saying that the Palestinians are committing chemical warfare and using chemical weapons against the Israelis. They might be tossing extra chemicals into some of their bombs, but "chemical weapons" means something far more expansive than just that. It creates an impression of dozens if not hundreds slain by poison gas. It conjures up the images of that third portion of CBN or WMD. It might be strictly correct based on what the dictionary says, but dictionaries aren't the end-all be-all of language.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

Who associated biowarfare with mysterious envelopes coming in the mail that got a few people sick and killed one or two unfortunate people before a few years ago? That doesn't mean the weaponized anthrax in those envelopes wasn't a bioweapon.

"Conjured up images" are just that. Some people associate nuclear war with a post-apocalyptic mad max type scenarios. That doesn't mean an exchange of nuclear weapons isn't a nuclear war unless we all start gunning people down in tricked out vehicles while we are fighting over gasoline.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

No, but the fact that such images are conjured up so readily by the simple use of a phrase does mean that one should avoid the sensationalist rhetoric unless it is truely applicable.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse."
--John Stuart Mill

Rather than "CBN".

Just saying...

Ignorance is the lack of knowledge.
Retardation is an inability to correct that lack.
Stupidity is the conscious refusal to correct that lack.

Bleach and Ammonia together will yield chloramine gas.
It's not chlorine gas, not mustard gas. And mustard gas
is not chlorine gas.

I think acid (eg HCl) and bleach was what was meant (for producing chlorine).

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Ammonia cleansers, that is, cleansers that are ammonia (NH4)
dissolved in water, are never acids, and contain no acids.
Ammonia cleansers are always alkaline.

They are useful because they "cut grease" by saponifying them,
making them much less hydrophobic, like the process by which
soap is made from lye and animal or vegetable fats.

http://www.toiletpaperworld.com/tpw/product.asp?strSku=DRK+CB109797

Windex with vinegar.

Organic acids are excellent solvents
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777