🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Don" == Don Homuth <dhomuth1@attbi.com> writes:

Don> In the case of biological attack, the Term of Art I've heard used
Don> is "blowback."  It's also the case for chemical weapons attacks
Don> -- which are often tactically useless for the same reason.

But chemical weapons aren't necessarily as persistent (I understand
sarin, or maybe it was VX, decays in the environment in about a day),
and it doesn't replicate.  It is possible to put a chemical agent on a
target and have it more or less stay there.

I'd just note here as an aside that concluding our war with Iraq
without their use of chemical weapons pretty much proves that it was
unnecessary.  Either: a) Iraq doesn't have any; or b) deterence was
effective.

Russell> Paradoxically, the ones who launch mass immunizations
Russell> (e.g. for smallpox) are the most likely to be the ones who
Russell> use it as a weapon because they are in a position to limit
Russell> their own casualties.

Don> But that does not suggest that those who immunize are necessarily
Don> planning an attack either.  Clearly that cannot be the case.

Necessarily?  No.  But let us not allow sentimentality to impair our
judgement.



-- 
Russell Senior         ``I've seen every kind of critter God ever made,
seniorr@aracnet.com      and I ain't never seen a meaner, lower, more
                         stinkin' yellow hypocrite than you!'' 
                                        -- Burl Ives as Rufus Hennessy