Chemical warfare. Please explain the dangers. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

-Ever- · 05-25-2004, 09:14 PM

So I just signed on to AOL and read that a very trusted source informed the government that al-Queda is planning on making major chemical terrorist attacks this summer. Now I know that there's always scares here and there, but reading the article this time hit rather close to home for some reason.

If al-Queda accomplished what they set out to do, what kind of damge would be done? Would they most likely just attack large, downtown areas like New York and San Francisco, or would they try to release chemicals randomly throughout to cause chaos?

I know that everyday life is so fragile that there really isn't enough time to fully worry about something like this, but I'd feel like a fool if I wasn't informed when/if it ever did happen. Should I have a stockade of a radio, gasmask, powerbars, and oreo's if these chemicals leaked into the suburbs? Or should I have an offroad vehicle to carry me well into the mountainsides?

As you can see, I'm only semi-serious about all this. However sometimes people are never serious until it happens, and I don't like being caught off guard unknowing to what's going on.

Thanks for any info.
-T

MSD · 05-25-2004, 09:17 PM

Quote:

How To Survive A Terrorist Attack

Words of Wisdom About Gas, Germs, and Nukes
By SFC Red Thomas, Armor Master Gunner
U.S. Army (Ret) 10.19.01

Since the media have decided to scare everyone with predictions of chemical, biological, or nuclear warfare on our turf I decided to write a paper and keep things in their proper perspective. I am a retired military weapons, munitions, and training expert.

Lesson number one: In the mid 1990s there was a series of nerve gas attacks on crowded Japanese subway stations. Given perfect conditions for an attack, less than 10% of the people there were injured (the injured were better in a few hours) and only one percent of the injured died. CBS-Television's 60 Minutes once had a fellow telling us that one drop of nerve gas could kill a thousand people. He didn't tell you the thousand dead people per drop was theoretical. Drill Sergeants exaggerate how terrible this stuff is to keep the recruits awake in class (I know this because I was a Drill Sergeant too).

Forget everything you've ever seen on TV, in the movies, or read in a novel about this stuff, it was all a lie (Read this sentence again out loud!). These weapons are about terror, if you remain calm, you will probably not die.

This is far less scary than the media and their "experts" make it sound. Chemical weapons are categorized as Nerve, Blood, Blister, and Incapacitating agents. Contrary to the hype of reporters and politicians, they are not weapons of mass destruction. They are means of "Area Denial," effective to keep an enemy out of a particular zone for a limited period of time: terror weapons that don't destroy anything. When you leave the area you almost always leave the risk.

That's the difference; you can leave the area and the risk. Soldiers may have to stay put and sit through it and that's why they need all that spiffy gear.

These are not gasses; they are vapors and/or airborne particles. Any such agent must be delivered in sufficient quantity to kill or injure, and that defines when and how it's used.

Every day we have a morning and evening atmospheric inversion where "stuff," suspended in the air gets pushed down. This inversion is why allergies (pollen) and air pollution are worst at these times of the day.

So, a chemical attack will have its best effect an hour of so either side of sunrise or sunset. Also, being vapors and airborne particles, the agents are heavier than air, so they will seek low places like ditches, basements and underground garages. This stuff won't work when it's freezing, it doesn't last when it's hot, and wind spreads it too thin too fast.

Attackers have to get this stuff on you, or, get you to inhale it, for it to work. They also have to get the concentration of chemicals high enough to kill or injure you: too little and it's nothing, too much and it's wasted. What I hope you've gathered by this point is that a chemical weapons attack that kills a lot of people is incredibly hard to achieve with military grade agents and equipment. So you can imagine how hard it would be for terrorists. The more you know about this stuff, the more you realize how hard it is to use.

A Case of Nerves

We'll start by talking about nerve agents. You have these in your house: plain old bug killer (like Raid) is nerve agent. All nerve agents work the same way; they are cholinesterase inhibitors that mess up the signals your nervous system uses to make your body function. It can harm you if you get it on your skin but it works best if you to inhale it. If you don't die in the first minute and you can leave the area, you're probably going to live.

The military's antidotes for all nerve agents are atropine and pralidoxime chloride. Neither one of these does anything to cure the nerve agent. They send your body into overdrive to keep you alive for five minutes. After that the agent is used up. Your best protection is fresh air and staying calm. Listed below are the symptoms for nerve agent poisoning.

Sudden headache, Dimness of vision (someone you're looking at will have pinpointed pupils), Runny nose, Excessive saliva or drooling, Difficulty breathing, Tightness in chest, Nausea, Stomach cramps, Twitching of exposed skin where a liquid just got on you.

If you are in public and you start experiencing these symptoms, first ask yourself, did anything out of the ordinary just happen, a loud pop, did someone spray something on the crowd? Are other people getting sick too? Is there an odor of new mown hay, green corn, something fruity, or camphor where it shouldn't be?

If the answer is yes, then calmly (if you panic you breathe faster and inhale more air/poison) leave the area and head upwind, or outside. Fresh air is the best "right now antidote." If you have a blob of liquid that looks like molasses or Karo syrup on you; blot it or scrape it off and away from yourself with anything disposable.

This stuff works based on your body weight: What a crop duster uses to kill bugs won't hurt you unless you stand there and breathe it in real deep, then lick the residue off the ground for while.

Remember, the attackers have to do all the work, they have to get the concentration up and keep it up for several minutes, while all you have to do is quit getting it on you and quit breathing it by putting space between yourself and the attack.

Bad Blood and Blisters

Blood agents are cyanide or arsine. They affect your blood's ability to provide oxygen to your tissues. The scenario for attack would be the same as nerve agent. Look for a pop or someone splashing or spraying something and folks around there getting woozy or falling down. The telltale smells are bitter almonds or garlic where it shouldn't be. The symptoms are blue lips, blue under the fingernails rapid breathing.

The military's antidote is amyl nitride and, just like nerve agent antidote, it just keeps your body working for five minutes till the toxins are used up. Fresh air is the your best individual chance

Blister agents (distilled mustard) are so nasty that nobody wants to even handle them, let alone use them. Blister agents are just as likely to harm the user as the target. They're almost impossible to handle safely and may have delayed effects of up to 12 hours. The attack scenario is also limited to the things you'd see from other chemicals. If you do get large, painful blisters for no apparent reason, don't pop them. If you must, don't let the liquid from the blister get on any other area: the stuff just keeps on spreading. Soap, water, sunshine, and fresh air are this stuff's enemy.

Bottom line on chemical weapons (and it's the same if they use industrial chemical spills): They are intended to make you panic, to terrorize you, to herd you like sheep to the wolves. If there is an attack, leave the area and go upwind, or to the sides of the wind stream. You're more likely to be hurt by a drunk driver on any given day than be hurt by one of these attacks. Your odds get better if you leave the area. Soap, water, time, and fresh air really deal this stuff a knock-out-punch. Don't let fear of an isolated attack rule your life. The odds are really on your side.

Up and Atom

Nuclear bombs: These are the only weapons of mass destruction on Earth. The effects of a nuclear bomb are heat, blast, EMP, and radiation. If you see a bright flash of light like the sun, where the sun isn't, fall to the ground! The heat will be over a second. Then there will be two blast waves, one out going, and one on its way back. Don't stand up to see what happened after the first wave. Wait. Everything that's going to happen will have happened in two full minutes.

Any nuclear weapons used by terrorists will be low yield devices and will not level whole cities. If you live through the heat, blast, and initial burst of radiation, you'll probably live for a very very long time. Radiation will not create fifty foot tall women, or giant ants and grasshoppers the size of tanks. These will be at the most 1 kiloton bombs; that's the equivalent of 1,000 tons of TNT.

Here's the real hazard: Flying debris and radiation will kill a lot of exposed (not all)! people within a half mile of the blast. Under perfect conditions this is about a half mile circle of death and destruction, but when it's done it's done.

EMP stands for Electro Magnetic Pulse and it will fry every electronic device for a good distance. It's impossible to say what and how far, but probably not over a couple of miles from ground zero is a good guess. Cars, cell phones, computers, ATMs, you name it, all will be out of order. There are lots of kinds of radiation, but , physically,you only need to worry about three: alpha, beta, and gamma. The others you have lived with for years.

You need to worry about "Ionizing radiation," little sub atomic particles that go whizzing along at the speed of light. They hit individual cells in your body, kill the nucleus and keep on going. That's how you get radiation poisoning: You have so many dead cells in your body that the decaying cells poison you. It's the same as people getting radiation treatments for cancer, only a bigger area gets irradiated.

The good news is you don't have to just sit there and take it, and there are lots you can do rather than panic. First, your skin will stop alpha particles, a page of a news paper or your clothing will stop beta particles. Then you just have to try and avoid inhaling dust that's contaminated with atoms that are emitting these things and you'll be generally safe from them.

Gamma rays are particles that travel like rays (quantum physics makes my brain hurt) and they create the same damage as alpha and beta particles only they keep going and kill lots of cells as they go all the way through your body. It takes a lot to stop these things, lots of dense material. On the other hand it takes a lot of this to kill you.

Your defense is as always to not panic. Basic hygiene and normal preparation are your friends. All canned or frozen food is safe to eat. The radiation poisoning will not affect plants, so fruits and vegetables are OK if there's no dust on them (Rinse them off if there is). If you don't have running water and you need to collect rain water or use water from wherever, just let it sit for thirty minutes and skim off the water gently from the top. The dust with the bad stuff in it will settle and the remaining water can be used for the toilet which will still work if you have a bucket of water to pour in the tank.

The Germs' Terms

Finally there's biological warfare. There's not much to cover here. Basic personal hygiene and sanitation will take you further than a million doctors. Wash your hands often, don't share drinks, food, sloppy kisses, etc., ...with strangers. Keep your garbage can with a tight lid on it, don't have standing water (like old buckets, ditches, or kiddy pools) laying around to allow mosquitoes breeding room.

This stuff is carried by vectors, that is bugs, rodents, and contaminated material. If biological warfare is as easy as the TV makes it sound, why has Saddam Hussein spent twenty years, millions, and millions of dollars trying to get it right? If you're clean of person and home, eat well and are active, you're going to live.

Overall preparation for any terrorist attack is the same as you'd take for a big storm. If you want a gas mask, fine, go get one. I know this stuff and I'm not getting one and I told my Mom not to bother with one either (How's that for confidence?). We have a week's worth of cash, several days worth of canned goods and plenty of soap and water. We don't leave stuff out to attract bugs or rodents so we don't have them.

These terrorist people can't conceive of a nation this big with as much resources as it has. These weapons are made to cause panic, terror, and to demoralize. If we don't run around like sheep, they won't use this stuff after they find out it's no fun and does them little good. The government is going nuts over this stuff because they have to protect every inch of America. You only have to protect yourself, and by doing that, you help the country.

Finally, there are millions of caveats to everything I wrote here and you can think up specific scenarios in which my advice wouldn't be the best. This article is supposed to help the greatest number of people under the greatest number of situations. If you don't like my work, don't nitpick, just sit down and explain chemical, nuclear, and biological warfare in a document around three pages long yourself. This is how we the people of the United States can rob these people of their most desired goal, your terror.

SFC Red Thomas (Ret) Armor Master Gunner Mesa, AZ

Unlimited reproduction and distribution is authorized. Just give me credit for my work, and, keep in context.

Verified by Snopes

Asuka{eve} · 05-25-2004, 11:16 PM

The article seems very convincing. The only thing that makes me wonder is on the news on other tv stations its often mentioned that Saddam used chemical weapons in Iran and on Kurds. I think many have seen the vid of where a camera man is walking filming dead people on the sides of the roads in Iraq who where victims of the attack. In that video it seemed pretty serious. Is there anywhere on the net, paper, media that explains what happened there?

Nisses · 05-26-2004, 12:28 AM

Generally good advice. Although it's good to read the comments Snopes made about it too.

Always read more than 1 side to it. Helps to put it into perspective. Though from chemistry lab, physics and biology I got in highschool, about 80% of this I already knew. Just after all the media-hype, you start to question it all a bit.

Ripp3r · 05-26-2004, 01:09 AM

I think the most efficient attack would be to release an airborne virus... not with the intent of killing people as such, but to incapacitate the nation ... War used to be about killing the enemy troops, until they found out that a wounded soldier costs the enemy far more resources and problems than a corpse.

The modern day terrorist knows that it cannot win a war with a highly funded, highly trained military... their only option is to incapacitate the supply chain feeding the beast...

release airborne and highly contagious agents all over the country and disable the population either through illness or quarantine .... if nobody can go to work, no money is earned and lots of revenue is lost ... that can seriously injure a nations economy...

Now all of the above is speculation on my part, I am in no way planning an attack or trying to bring anyone to ideas

...
But my agent of choice would be Guinness

get the population drunk for the larger part of the day ... and see the economy crumble

onetime2 · 05-26-2004, 04:36 AM

I got into a big argument with a fellow employee about the possibility shortly after 9/11. She was so convinced that thousands of people would die in an attack it was ridiculous.

Delivery in sufficient quantities is the biggest problem. As mentioned in the article, people generally leave the area when something bad happens and the agents can't really follow you.

As far as the attacks by Saddam using chemical agents, you have to remember they're firing thousands of shells full of the stuff into a concentrated area. That's why there was so much death. Terrorists won't have that opportunity.

Another thing that people need to realize is that the terrorists don't need to kill a thousand people in one shot to accomplish their goals. Their main purpose is to instill fear. The very use of chemical, biologic, or nuclear weapons on our home soil against ordinary citizens will scare people. They begin thinking "I take the train every day, that could have been me" or "I passed through there just last week", etc, etc, etc.

The odds of any one of us TFP members being killed in a terrorist attack are less than the odds we'll be bit by a dog or killed in a car accident. If you're one of the unlucky few murdered in such a way your luck was just plain ridiculously bad that day.

Yakk · 05-26-2004, 07:23 AM

Bio weapons are a larger danger than Nuclear.

Nuclear weapons are a larger danger than Chemical weapons.

Chemical weapons are a larger danger than Explosives.

Explosives are a larger danger than Hijacking (now).

Driving a car is a larger danger than Bio weapons.

The thing I am afraid of in the war on terror is what happens if an industrialized nation gets really pissed off.

To give you an idea, take Canada. If Canada where to go on war footing, it could manage military expendatures 2 times that of the current USA (keeping 1/3 of GDP to keep its people fed).

Imagine if the USA, EU, Japan or even Russia or China where to go on war footing.

Any one nation going all out would trigger others to do the same. Then a pin-drop could trigger WW3. A conventional WW3 would make WW2 look like a kindergarden cry-fest, and if it where to go ABC...

To put it in perspective: if every month a hijacker where to ram the WTC with 2 airplanes, twice as many people would die from the terrorist attacks than die from car accidents every year. Even a terrorist attack of unprecidented size, like the WTC, is barely a blip on the radar screen. The rage of an industrialized nation, or a state of all-out war, is not.

Don't worry about a terrorist attack, worry about getting in a car accident.

denim · 05-26-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ripp3r
I think the most efficient attack would be to release an airborne virus... not with the intent of killing people as such, but to incapacitate the nation ... War used to be about killing the enemy troops, until they found out that a wounded soldier costs the enemy far more resources and problems than a corpse.

Just a quick comment: in general, it's not a good idea to tell the enemy how to hurt you. Keep that in mind.

-Ever- · 05-26-2004, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Yakk

To put it in perspective: if every month a hijacker where to ram the WTC with 2 airplanes, twice as many people would die from the terrorist attacks than die from car accidents every year.

I don't think this is accurate. I head on the news the other day that over 600,000 people die on the freeway systems every year in the US (I'm 99% sure that's what I heard...). That equates to quite a lot more WTC's than just once a month.

Yakk · 05-26-2004, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by -Ever-
I don't think this is accurate. I head on the news the other day that over 600,000 people die on the freeway systems every year in the US (I'm 99% sure that's what I heard...). That equates to quite a lot more WTC's than just once a month.

Quote:

Preliminary figures show 43,220 people died in 2003 - the highest number since 1990 when 44,529 died in auto accidents up slightly from the 42,815 deaths in 2002, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Wednesday. People drove more total miles last year, so the rate of deaths per miles traveled was about the same.

http://www.aiada.org/article.asp?id=11007

(top hit on google for "american automobile deaths").

kutulu · 05-26-2004, 12:21 PM

The real power in chem and bio weapons is in their intimidation factor. They scare the hell out of people.

Look at the TV show 24. This season, a bio weapon is released in a large hotel. A couple hours later, everyone dies. Could that really happen? The vial couldn't have had more than 20g of material in it. If the hotel was 30 floors, and 200x200ft that's 12 million cubic feet. The concentration of the virus in the air at equilibrium would have been about 0.5 ppm. Could that concentration really kill an entire hotel in a few hours?

I know nothing about the effectiveness of bioweapons, I would like to know what typical concentrations of an airborne virus would be needed for people to have a good chance of infection. We live with carcinogen concentrations way above that in our ambient air.

The same thinking applies to the idea of people poisoning the water supply. In a city of 2 million people, they use the bathroom about 5 times a day (1 gallon each time), drink about a half gallon of water, use about a gallon washing their hands, a few gallons to cook and clean their dishes, we wash our clothes, water our lawns, fill our pools, etc. A city that large probably uses way more than 100 million gallons of water each DAY. How much of a toxin would a potential terrorist need to poison the water supply? A shitload.

clavus · 05-26-2004, 12:29 PM

The next terrorist attack will be another low-tech, high-impact one. Imagine something like shooting up a bunch of elementry schools, thereby causing our already near-bankrupt school system to collapse under the weight of new "security measures" designed to keep it from happening again.

Or, maybe shooting down a plane. How? Put three guys with AK-47's in the back of a pick-up truck a block from Ontario (California) Airport. As a DC-10 flys over, they open up on the engines or cockpit. Once again, the US will spend massive $$ trying to keep this from happening again (i.e. moving all airports to unpopulated areas, etc.)

I will refrain from threadjacking and NOT turn this into a political bitchfest about the "War on Terror", Bush or Iraq. I request that others follow suit.

Lebell · 05-26-2004, 09:26 PM

They're are called "terror attacks" because they are designed to increase your fear, not to kill a statistically large number of people.

On average, a person dies every 13 minutes from an automobile accident, so you are in FAR more danger when you get behind the wheel of your car than from a terrorist attack.

kutulu · 05-27-2004, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lebell
They're are called "terror attacks" because they are designed to increase your fear, not to kill a statistically large number of people.

On average, a person dies every 13 minutes from an automobile accident, so you are in FAR more danger when you get behind the wheel of your car than from a terrorist attack.

Applying that logic, why then are we acting like this is the largest threat to us? Is it worth devoting hundreds of billions of dollars to something that for the most part is unpreventable and will not harm a significant number of people?

Stud · 05-27-2004, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Asuka{eve}
Seems very convincing. The only thing that makes me wonder is on the news on other tv stations its often mentioned that Saddam used chemical weapons in Iran and on Kurds. I think many have seen the vid of where a camera man is walking filming dead people on the sides of the roads who were victim of the attack.

Let us look at the media and get some facts straight:

A.) Saddam never had any WMD.
B.) But he got them from the US.
C.) Saddam was a nice guy and the evil US just wanted his oil. I mean the US could have just spent the money it has on the war on oil and it would have been cheaper, but it is all about the oil that other countries like Germany, France and Russia did not have deals with Saddam to get.
D.) There is no way we can defend ourselves against terrorists. This is the first time anything like this has ever happened and they are much, much more intelligent than a non-terrorist could be.
E.) We only have one choice, to give into the terrorists. Bully's always respect weakness and when you give in they move on to other things and elave you alone.

bookerV · 05-27-2004, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stud
E.) We only have one choice, to give into the terrorists. Bully's always respect weakness and when you give in they move on to other things and elave you alone.

I can't disagree with this more. What would you have the US do? Just how would they "give in"? The occupation in Iraq isn't what they want, seeming as 9/11 was long before that. So how do you give in? Not to mention that I have never known a bully to respect weakness. Bully's prey on weakness. I have bullied others, and I have been the victim of bully's when I was younger. Bully's stop bullying when they CAN'T bully you any more. If you lay down then they just roll right over you. A terrorist is not a bear, you don't just play dead and hope they go away. When has that ever worked? Sure let these guys get what they want, and the next group, and the group after that, and the ones after that. You lay down for a group there are 100 more ready to follow right after them and walk all over you. I don't agree with how the US has handled everything, but I absolutely do believe that laying down would be 100% the wrong thing to do.

Stud · 05-27-2004, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bookerV
I can't disagree with this more. What would you have the US do? Just how would they "give in"? The occupation in Iraq isn't what they want, seeming as 9/11 was long before that. So how do you give in? Not to mention that I have never known a bully to respect weakness. Bully's prey on weakness. I have bullied others, and I have been the victim of bully's when I was younger. Bully's stop bullying when they CAN'T bully you any more. If you lay down then they just roll right over you. A terrorist is not a bear, you don't just play dead and hope they go away. When has that ever worked? Sure let these guys get what they want, and the next group, and the group after that, and the ones after that. You lay down for a group there are 100 more ready to follow right after them and walk all over you. I don't agree with how the US has handled everything, but I absolutely do believe that laying down would be 100% the wrong thing to do.

But...But...I am sure if we do whatthey say they will be nice to us!

denim · 05-27-2004, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by bookerV
I can't disagree with this more.

Er, you missed his point. Combine his (A) and (B) statements, first. Continue from there.

bookerV · 05-27-2004, 11:25 AM

I didn't miss his point. I never said that I believe what the US did was right with their invasion. However, they are there now. I do not believe that a 100% surrender to terrorist demands is the best answer. I believe that there are better answers than what they are doing. I think there are much better ways to resolve the thing. I really hope they find a peaceful solution. But I don't believe that rolling over at this point is a viable option. It just leaves too much open. The US created this mess, I think they need to be there in some form to stablize the place. You can't have it both ways.

DelayedReaction · 05-27-2004, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bookerV
I didn't miss his point. I never said that I believe what the US did was right with their invasion. However, they are there now. I do not believe that a 100% surrender to terrorist demands is the best answer. I believe that there are better answers than what they are doing. I think there are much better ways to resolve the thing. I really hope they find a peaceful solution. But I don't believe that rolling over at this point is a viable option. It just leaves too much open. The US created this mess, I think they need to be there in some form to stablize the place. You can't have it both ways.

I'm sorry, but I think you did miss his point. He was being sarcastic; he quoted all of the "facts" that the media has provided us and showed how they contradict. You know, the same media sources that call themselves "fair and balanced."

Obviously we can't give in to terrorist demands; it would demonstrate that the tactic is effective and encourage them to continue. What happened in Spain is an example; bolstered by their success in Spain they will continue to create more terror.

What scares me is what would happen if they attacked a truly soft target such as our schools. Imagine the fear that would arise if terrorists deployed chemical or biological agents in an elementary school; attendance would drop immediately and confidence in the administration would be miniscule. Or worse yet, if terrorists simply arrived and began shooting.

Would America have the resolve to respond the right way, or the way the terrorists would want?

denim · 05-27-2004, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DelayedReaction
What scares me is what would happen if they attacked a truly soft target such as our schools. Imagine the fear that would arise if terrorists deployed chemical or biological agents in an elementary school; attendance would drop immediately and confidence in the administration would be miniscule. Or worse yet, if terrorists simply arrived and began shooting.

I like to believe that we'd simply get REALLY PISSED OFF, and start explaining it to "them" in ways that would be unmistakable.

Quote:

Would America have the resolve to respond the right way, or the way the terrorists would want?

Given recent history, I suspect "neither of the above" is the what we'd actually do.

bookerV · 05-27-2004, 12:38 PM

I think the real issue here is, what is the "right way"? There is no way to deal with terrorists. You can't give in to their demands, but you can't exactly stop them either. At least not without seriously restricting personal freedoms and rights. That's what makes a "war on terror" a losing battle. If it was easy as dealing with it "the right way" then it would have been dealt with. How do you fight someone you can't find or track? How do you respond to this issue that is fair to the people you are trying to protect? When you are talking terrorism there isn't really a black and white on how to deal with it. That is why it has existed for so long and probably always will. As long as their are people with opposing views that are willing to die for those views, you will have terrorism. You can't blame a nation or any given target. It's a group of individuals, but you don't know who they are. They could be your neighbours or they could be people on the other side of the world. You never really know until somehow they get found out, or something terrible happens...

Asuka{eve} · 05-27-2004, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Stud
Let us look at the media and get some facts straight:

A.) Saddam never had any WMD.
B.) But he got them from the US.
C.) Saddam was a nice guy and the evil US just wanted his oil. I mean the US could have just spent the money it has on the war on oil and it would have been cheaper, but it is all about the oil that other countries like Germany, France and Russia did not have deals with Saddam to get.
D.) There is no way we can defend ourselves against terrorists. This is the first time anything like this has ever happened and they are much, much more intelligent than a non-terrorist could be.
E.) We only have one choice, to give into the terrorists. Bully's always respect weakness and when you give in they move on to other things and elave you alone.

What are you talking about?

O what the hell. I can see this is turning into bitch fest. I'm out.

kutulu · 05-27-2004, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DelayedReaction
Would America have the resolve to respond the right way, or the way the terrorists would want?

Meaning what exactly? Terrorists are trying to start a world war. Isn't the best way to start a world war to get powerfull nations to attack weak nations that cannot defend themselves against such a force?

I'm not saying we should sit around and act like pussies but invading nations whenever we get attacked is going to do more to fuel terrorism and start world wars than making surgical strikes with the cooperation of the country being attacked.

The idea that you can stop terrorism by building nations is absurd.

Stud · 05-27-2004, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bookerV
I didn't miss his point. I never said that I believe what the US did was right with their invasion. However, they are there now. I do not believe that a 100% surrender to terrorist demands is the best answer. I believe that there are better answers than what they are doing.

Like what? Please be specific.

05-25-2004, 09:14 PM	#1 (permalink)
-Ever- Junkie Location: San Francisco	Chemical warfare. Please explain the dangers. So I just signed on to AOL and read that a very trusted source informed the government that al-Queda is planning on making major chemical terrorist attacks this summer. Now I know that there's always scares here and there, but reading the article this time hit rather close to home for some reason. If al-Queda accomplished what they set out to do, what kind of damge would be done? Would they most likely just attack large, downtown areas like New York and San Francisco, or would they try to release chemicals randomly throughout to cause chaos? I know that everyday life is so fragile that there really isn't enough time to fully worry about something like this, but I'd feel like a fool if I wasn't informed when/if it ever did happen. Should I have a stockade of a radio, gasmask, powerbars, and oreo's if these chemicals leaked into the suburbs? Or should I have an offroad vehicle to carry me well into the mountainsides? As you can see, I'm only semi-serious about all this. However sometimes people are never serious until it happens, and I don't like being caught off guard unknowing to what's going on. Thanks for any info. -T __________________ Embracing the goddess energy within yourselves will bring all of you to a new understanding and valuing of life. A vision that inspires you to live and love on planet Earth. Like a priceless jewel buried in dark layers of soil and stone, Earth radiates her brilliant beauty into the caverns of space and time. Perhaps you are aware of those who watch over your home And experience of this place to visit and play with reality. You are becoming aware of yourself as a gamemaster... --Acknowledge your weaknesses-- Last edited by -Ever-; 05-25-2004 at 09:16 PM..

05-25-2004, 11:16 PM	#3 (permalink)
Asuka{eve} Addict Location: Oh God, the rain!	The article seems very convincing. The only thing that makes me wonder is on the news on other tv stations its often mentioned that Saddam used chemical weapons in Iran and on Kurds. I think many have seen the vid of where a camera man is walking filming dead people on the sides of the roads in Iraq who where victims of the attack. In that video it seemed pretty serious. Is there anywhere on the net, paper, media that explains what happened there? Last edited by Asuka{eve}; 05-27-2004 at 01:48 PM..

05-26-2004, 12:28 AM	#4 (permalink)
Nisses Shade Location: Belgium	Generally good advice. Although it's good to read the comments Snopes made about it too. Always read more than 1 side to it. Helps to put it into perspective. Though from chemistry lab, physics and biology I got in highschool, about 80% of this I already knew. Just after all the media-hype, you start to question it all a bit. __________________ Moderation should be moderately moderated.

05-26-2004, 01:09 AM	#5 (permalink)
Ripp3r Tilted Location: Dublin, Ireland	I think the most efficient attack would be to release an airborne virus... not with the intent of killing people as such, but to incapacitate the nation ... War used to be about killing the enemy troops, until they found out that a wounded soldier costs the enemy far more resources and problems than a corpse. The modern day terrorist knows that it cannot win a war with a highly funded, highly trained military... their only option is to incapacitate the supply chain feeding the beast... release airborne and highly contagious agents all over the country and disable the population either through illness or quarantine .... if nobody can go to work, no money is earned and lots of revenue is lost ... that can seriously injure a nations economy... Now all of the above is speculation on my part, I am in no way planning an attack or trying to bring anyone to ideas ... But my agent of choice would be Guinness get the population drunk for the larger part of the day ... and see the economy crumble __________________ We All Have Questions What Seperates The Men From The Boys Is The Ability To Use Google To Find Our Answers

05-26-2004, 04:36 AM	#6 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	I got into a big argument with a fellow employee about the possibility shortly after 9/11. She was so convinced that thousands of people would die in an attack it was ridiculous. Delivery in sufficient quantities is the biggest problem. As mentioned in the article, people generally leave the area when something bad happens and the agents can't really follow you. As far as the attacks by Saddam using chemical agents, you have to remember they're firing thousands of shells full of the stuff into a concentrated area. That's why there was so much death. Terrorists won't have that opportunity. Another thing that people need to realize is that the terrorists don't need to kill a thousand people in one shot to accomplish their goals. Their main purpose is to instill fear. The very use of chemical, biologic, or nuclear weapons on our home soil against ordinary citizens will scare people. They begin thinking "I take the train every day, that could have been me" or "I passed through there just last week", etc, etc, etc. The odds of any one of us TFP members being killed in a terrorist attack are less than the odds we'll be bit by a dog or killed in a car accident. If you're one of the unlucky few murdered in such a way your luck was just plain ridiculously bad that day. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

05-26-2004, 07:23 AM	#7 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	Bio weapons are a larger danger than Nuclear. Nuclear weapons are a larger danger than Chemical weapons. Chemical weapons are a larger danger than Explosives. Explosives are a larger danger than Hijacking (now). Driving a car is a larger danger than Bio weapons. The thing I am afraid of in the war on terror is what happens if an industrialized nation gets really pissed off. To give you an idea, take Canada. If Canada where to go on war footing, it could manage military expendatures 2 times that of the current USA (keeping 1/3 of GDP to keep its people fed). Imagine if the USA, EU, Japan or even Russia or China where to go on war footing. Any one nation going all out would trigger others to do the same. Then a pin-drop could trigger WW3. A conventional WW3 would make WW2 look like a kindergarden cry-fest, and if it where to go ABC... To put it in perspective: if every month a hijacker where to ram the WTC with 2 airplanes, twice as many people would die from the terrorist attacks than die from car accidents every year. Even a terrorist attack of unprecidented size, like the WTC, is barely a blip on the radar screen. The rage of an industrialized nation, or a state of all-out war, is not. Don't worry about a terrorist attack, worry about getting in a car accident. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

05-26-2004, 12:21 PM	#11 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	The real power in chem and bio weapons is in their intimidation factor. They scare the hell out of people. Look at the TV show 24. This season, a bio weapon is released in a large hotel. A couple hours later, everyone dies. Could that really happen? The vial couldn't have had more than 20g of material in it. If the hotel was 30 floors, and 200x200ft that's 12 million cubic feet. The concentration of the virus in the air at equilibrium would have been about 0.5 ppm. Could that concentration really kill an entire hotel in a few hours? I know nothing about the effectiveness of bioweapons, I would like to know what typical concentrations of an airborne virus would be needed for people to have a good chance of infection. We live with carcinogen concentrations way above that in our ambient air. The same thinking applies to the idea of people poisoning the water supply. In a city of 2 million people, they use the bathroom about 5 times a day (1 gallon each time), drink about a half gallon of water, use about a gallon washing their hands, a few gallons to cook and clean their dishes, we wash our clothes, water our lawns, fill our pools, etc. A city that large probably uses way more than 100 million gallons of water each DAY. How much of a toxin would a potential terrorist need to poison the water supply? A shitload. Last edited by kutulu; 05-26-2004 at 12:26 PM..

05-26-2004, 12:29 PM	#12 (permalink)
clavus pow! Location: NorCal	The next terrorist attack will be another low-tech, high-impact one. Imagine something like shooting up a bunch of elementry schools, thereby causing our already near-bankrupt school system to collapse under the weight of new "security measures" designed to keep it from happening again. Or, maybe shooting down a plane. How? Put three guys with AK-47's in the back of a pick-up truck a block from Ontario (California) Airport. As a DC-10 flys over, they open up on the engines or cockpit. Once again, the US will spend massive $$ trying to keep this from happening again (i.e. moving all airports to unpopulated areas, etc.) I will refrain from threadjacking and NOT turn this into a political bitchfest about the "War on Terror", Bush or Iraq. I request that others follow suit. __________________ Ass, gas or grass. Nobody rides for free.

05-26-2004, 09:26 PM	#13 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	They're are called "terror attacks" because they are designed to increase your fear, not to kill a statistically large number of people. On average, a person dies every 13 minutes from an automobile accident, so you are in FAR more danger when you get behind the wheel of your car than from a terrorist attack. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-27-2004, 11:25 AM	#19 (permalink)
bookerV Addict Location: Ontario, Canada	I didn't miss his point. I never said that I believe what the US did was right with their invasion. However, they are there now. I do not believe that a 100% surrender to terrorist demands is the best answer. I believe that there are better answers than what they are doing. I think there are much better ways to resolve the thing. I really hope they find a peaceful solution. But I don't believe that rolling over at this point is a viable option. It just leaves too much open. The US created this mess, I think they need to be there in some form to stablize the place. You can't have it both ways. __________________ "That's why you're the judge and I'm the law-talking guy." Lionel Hutz

05-27-2004, 12:38 PM	#22 (permalink)
bookerV Addict Location: Ontario, Canada	I think the real issue here is, what is the "right way"? There is no way to deal with terrorists. You can't give in to their demands, but you can't exactly stop them either. At least not without seriously restricting personal freedoms and rights. That's what makes a "war on terror" a losing battle. If it was easy as dealing with it "the right way" then it would have been dealt with. How do you fight someone you can't find or track? How do you respond to this issue that is fair to the people you are trying to protect? When you are talking terrorism there isn't really a black and white on how to deal with it. That is why it has existed for so long and probably always will. As long as their are people with opposing views that are willing to die for those views, you will have terrorism. You can't blame a nation or any given target. It's a group of individuals, but you don't know who they are. They could be your neighbours or they could be people on the other side of the world. You never really know until somehow they get found out, or something terrible happens... __________________ "That's why you're the judge and I'm the law-talking guy." Lionel Hutz