Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Manchu wrote:No need to split hairs, the mass destruction in those cases refers to killing large groups of people not necessarily material infrastructure.

Than what separates sarin gas from a bunker buster?

ShumaGorath wrote:Than what separates sarin gas from a bunker buster?

The smell.

From the viewpoint of the Bush administration? Does that question answer your question?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Manchu wrote:No need to split hairs, the mass destruction in those cases refers to killing large groups of people not necessarily material infrastructure.

Than what separates sarin gas from a bunker buster?

The bunker.

The size of the it comes from. Dropped a few that could bust a bunker wide open.

ShumaGorath wrote:Its an annoying distinction since bio/chem weapons aren't capable of mass destruction. They're actually amazingly good at killing without the destruction part.

Good, but not on the same scale as a strategic nuke.

However anyone chooses to define 'WMD' at the end of the day it's a political term that gets used to make a threat appear greater than it was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:The bunker.

ShumaGorath wrote:Its an annoying distinction since bio/chem weapons aren't capable of mass destruction.

Only nuclear weapons can really destroy mass. Everything else just moves it around.

Ok you want to talk about weapons of mass destruction.



Imagine the critical mass when the seams in those pants finally give way. Talk about a massive body count (I know bad pun).

It cannot be unseen...

Orkeosaurus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Its an annoying distinction since bio/chem weapons aren't capable of mass destruction.

Only nuclear weapons can really destroy mass. Everything else just moves it around.

Nah, they just convert a miniscule amount of it into energy. You can't destroy matter and mass is energy.

I guess I dropped the doomsday device on this thread.

"Gentlemen! There's no fighting in the war room!"

ShumaGorath wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Its an annoying distinction since bio/chem weapons aren't capable of mass destruction.

Only nuclear weapons can really destroy mass. Everything else just moves it around.

Nah, they just convert a miniscule amount of it into energy. You can't destroy matter and mass is energy.

My understanding is that you can destroy matter and rest mass, but not relativistic mass. Of course, the destruction of matter is the creation of energy, so combined they are still conserved. (Alternatively, the ability to destroy the state of Massachusetts should be acceptable for WMD status.)

ShumaGorath wrote:

Manchu wrote:No need to split hairs, the mass destruction in those cases refers to killing large groups of people not necessarily material infrastructure.

Than what separates sarin gas from a bunker buster?

Legally? Nothing. Try getting caught with either and getting away with it.

Either way, these nutjobs are pretty scary, especially muddying the waters with their apocalyptic religious beliefs and political opposition. I've also heard that the large Arab population of Detroit may have pushed these guys over the edge to actually arm and train themselves for bog knows what.

Kanluwen wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:May have been Clinton. I just assumed the term WMD came about during the 9/11 days. My point about lawmakers over-reacting still stands.

Weapons of mass destruction refers to any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious physical harm through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors,a weapon involving a disease organism or biological agent ,or a weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.

That's the US legal definition of a WMD, just as a FYI.

I don't really see how them classing pipe bombs, fertilizer bombs, etc as "WMDs" would be an overreaction either.
A pipe bomb can be made using poisonous/toxic chemicals, correct?
A pipe bomb is a weapon that is designed to cause death or serious physical harm through the impact of said chemicals, right?

Voila. It meets the criteria, if only very vaguely.

Bonus round:
There's no fething reason, whatsoever, that any civilian needs homemade explosives without supervision from a demolitions expert.

Farmers use home made explosives for removing tree stumps. And messing around wwith on farms

sexiest_hero wrote:Their plan was one of the most evil plans I've seen in a while. Kill an Innocent, kill the cop that comes to help, use WMDs to kill the large groping of mourning cops. All to "Fight the Anti-Christ"

The Empire strikes back!

Go FBI

Almost as bad s your average terrorist.

Their mug shots look like serious mouthbreathers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:You could call poisoning the soil for decades mass destruction of the environment....

You could but you would be stupid.

Kanluwen wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:May have been Clinton. I just assumed the term WMD came about during the 9/11 days. My point about lawmakers over-reacting still stands.

Weapons of mass destruction refers to any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious physical harm through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors,a weapon involving a disease organism or biological agent ,or a weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life.

That's the US legal definition of a WMD, just as a FYI.

I don't really see how them classing pipe bombs, fertilizer bombs, etc as "WMDs" would be an overreaction either.
A pipe bomb can be made using poisonous/toxic chemicals, correct?
A pipe bomb is a weapon that is designed to cause death or serious physical harm through the impact of said chemicals, right?

Voila. It meets the criteria, if only very vaguely.

Bonus round:
There's no fething reason, whatsoever, that any civilian needs homemade explosives without supervision from a demolitions expert.

It means poison gas and things like that. Otherwise all the air force's bombs and missiles would be WMDs. Only their nukes are, technically.

You can cook up poison gas at home. Hydrogen Sulphide is easily produced with bathroom cleaning products. It happens by accident when people don't read the labels. The difference in making a weapon is to purposely generate enough gas to have a widespread effect.

Obviously people should be making things like that, or explosive bombs at home.

Frazzled wrote:

Soladrin wrote:You could call poisoning the soil for decades mass destruction of the environment....

You could but you would be stupid.

Damn, I don't even know how to respond to this....

Remember the old phrase "there are no stupid questions?"

They were wrong.

I agree on that, but I don't with the current context

Spamming this thread with trolling and severly off-topic comments could be considered an act of mass destruction of the topic.

Manchu wrote:Did it ever occur to the would-be-demagogues who tell the tens of thousands who watch and listen to them that the latest issue of debate in our nation's public life will surely signal the Apocalypse that several of them might take that kind of rhetoric seriously and go out and start shooting/train for terror attacks in the Michigan woods/load up a van with chemical fertilizers/jump into their private plane/shoot a man they disagree with at his church/etc?

Nope. Because "hey, I'm just an entertainer, man."

The demagogues aren't the problem. The problem is poorly educated rednecks and a bad economy that has a bunch of those guys out of work. I grew up with with guys like this. They're Beavis and Butthead. In many ways, they're pretty harmless. Their "training" is probably at least 50% devoted to filling their big guts with cheap beer. Figure Piels or Natty Light. Mostly, they just like playing soldier without any real idea of what being a soldier means. They probably all have their own theme songs and background music that they sing in their heads as they stumble around in the woods clumsily, imagining that they're Johnny Rambo.

They're really not frightening at all until you realize these guys have access to weapons and improvised explosives. Then they start getting scary.

Still not scary. Crips and Bloods, scary. MS-13 scary. Congress...terrifying.
These guys-funny.
But fair is fair. Hang them from a tree. if they were plotting against the actual government then put them against a wall and shoot them for treason.

Then move on deal with our open borders next to the free fire zone that is Mexico.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well, if proven it should be firing squad time. Unless you're wearing butternut or grey and running around with a blackpowder musket in front of a cheering crowd, rebellion should be dealt with accordingly.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/03/28/arrests-alleged-militia-activity-midwest/

See, that's what always gets me about the secessionist or revolutionary nutjobs. They want to start a new country because they don't like the laws, but are never prepared to accept the consequences of what that means. Those slobs probably couldn't wait to lawyer up when they were arrested, LOL.

If you Texans ever secede (everyone knows you have half a mind to), at least you'll go down fighting. I respect that.

Frazzled wrote:Almost as bad s your average terrorist.

Their mug shots look like serious mouthbreathers.

They planned to kill a policeman then plant IEDs at his funeral... how are they not terrorists?

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Almost as bad s your average terrorist.

Their mug shots look like serious mouthbreathers.

They planned to kill a policeman then plant IEDs at his funeral... how are they not terrorists?

Sigh, you're misreading. Doesn't help I can't type or finish a coherent thought. My bad.

What Frazzled meant to say was almost as bad as your everage terrorist but that would be a step up ("closers" is not in their resume). Their mug shots make them look like serious mouthbreathers (more dumb than a box of rocks).