The "Real" Deal about Nuclear, Bio, and Chem Attacks

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by swright50@excite.com: [b]Is it fun for you to make strawman arguments and win? Nobody here has said nerve gas, etc. are NOT dangerous. [/b][/quote] "We'll start by talking about nerve agents. You have these in your house, plain old bug killer (like Raid) is a 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 they can get you to inhale it. If you don't die in the first minute and you can leave the area you're probably gonna live." In the first sentence he's citing the commonality of nerve agents by using the big spray reference. In the last sentence he says "if you can leave the area you're probably gonna live". The gist of that paragraph is to downplay the danger of nerve agents, is it not? When in fact, if you're aware you've breathed a nerve agents, quite likely you're already dead. What happened in Tokyo doesn't mean that's what people should think of when they think of "chemical attack". Casting it in that manner is, in my opinion, bullshit. [b] [quote] And certainly no one has suggested Ebola is "like getting a bad cold." You say this kind of crap and knock it down. Well, good for you, I guess. [/b][/quote] Go back and read the whole thread. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by joegerardi: [b] Yes they were, but SFC Thomas covered this in his article: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And of those, Mustard gas was the worst, mainly because it was the most widely used. (Trivia note here: The actor Walter Brennen lost all his teeth due to Mustard Gas attacks in WW1.) .)[/b][/quote] Theoretically yes, if the agent isn't aggressive enough you could get away from it. If you're standing out in the open, unimpeded. And you knew what was going on, and were far enough away. What happens in a crowded subway? What happens if it's VX or Ricin, instead of a Sarin that was only 30% pure, as Aum Shinri made? *It is under ideal circumstances one could escape harm in a chemical attack*. That is not the way it should be presented IMO, and again it is misleading. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by aeon@mediaone.net: [b] No, it was not, because no nerve gas was used in WWI. That is what you are missing. The first nerve gases were developed in 1936, Sarin in 1938.[/b][/quote] Ok, 10 pts. to you for catching me in a semantic mistake. Now, what does that have to do with the point that it's misleading to present this threat as something not very dangerous? [b]Chip, the US had and has a research and development facility at Ft. Detrick, MD. We violated peace treaties just like the Soviets did. The US began dismantling munitions based on Agent VX in 1990.[/b] Chemical, I've seen no issue of a bio program outside of NIH. Not that I don't doubt we have one; again - that's not the issue. Do I have to spell out the point that it is possible for a terrorist to have attained a military grade anthrax strain, or something else more dangerous, from ex-Soviet Union technology versus our technology??? *It doesn't have anything to do with the bottom line: the present bio/chemical terrorist threat is an extreamly dangerous situation. [b]The relatively vast amount of public information available on biochem agents themselves and the history of their use supports most all of what was purported in SFC Red Thomas’ article.[/b] That is a subjective statement. If you do a simple search on the net you find much more information that supports my position that Thomas' article is misleading. Thomas' article only makes sense if it's 1939, or every terrorist is incompetant, and not willing to use more advanced substances. [b]After having been made aware of your error, you continue to present an argument based on non-factual information. With all due respect, this calls into question your credibility.[/b] I've made two errors: a semantical one involving the use of the words "nerve gas" over "toxic chemical", and a the error of assuming people were more aware of the lethality of current bio/chem warfare agents. Antibiotic resistant military grade anthrax is a whole different deal. VX is a different deal: lasts a long time on surfaces, different temperatures. Sarin, when heated, will *rise*: is won't just "seek low lying places". Things the Soviets were working on that are hyper virulent and contagious, not definable as "mass destruction" as much as "doomsday" weapons. All real things, that makes Thomas' position misleading, because he ignores all of that and more. His article serves no purpose in that respect other than to cause complacency. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Philip OKeefe]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] So, a howitzer is really just a bb gun? [/b][/quote] Essentially, yes. The difference is just a matter of scale. Okay, a howitzer has an explosive warhead, which the BB gun does not, but both weapons use the same general principle of expanding gas to drive the projectile out of a rifled barrell. The howitzer propels the projectile with a chemical explosion that creates rapidly expanding gasses which drive the round from the barrell, while the BB gun uses compressed air. With the right BB gun, and if you're hit in the right place, you die. With the howitzer, you also die - but it's far more likely outcome, and the point of impact doesn't require nearly the same amount of precision. The point I'm trying to make Chip, is that I think you're missing the point because you are not seeing the difference in scale. "Bug spray" IS a nerve agent, but far less powerful anc concentrated, and far more common than weapons grade nerve agents. The fact that it's more common and generally not as dangerous, it's STILL a nerve agent. Look at a can of Raid sometime. Notice that little label that says "It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling"? Hmmm... I wonder why THAT'S there? It's because if you USE it in a deliberate attempt to harm people, not only are you going to be guilty of the crime of assault, attempted murder or whatever, but they'll also get you for using a nerve agent. I'm not going to jump into the chorus of people calling you names... there were some good points in your earlier posts, and I certainly understand your concerns. For example, I agree with you that if the anthrax was resistant to antibiotics (as true "weapons grade" anthrax IS) then we'd be looking at a lot more deaths than the single one we've seen to date. But because the DELIVERY methodology is so primitive, we'd still be looking at numbers in the dozens or hundreds, but not the thousands or tens of thousands. And that was a good point of the original article - delivery methods, environmental conditions, agent concentrations and quality are all part of the equation when considering the potential effectiveness of such a attack, and getting all of those things (as well as a few others) "right" is harder than you might think. There were some very true and valid points in the original post that started the thread. Sure, there were a few inaccurate parts, but much of what was written is based on sound logic and current military training. I'm not suggesting complacency or lack of diligence. I think it's important that we take reasonable precautions, but panic - either before an "event" or in the middle of it, will, worst case, get you killed. Keeping your head and thinking through the middle of a crisis may still result in your death, but SIGNIFICANTLY increases your chances of survival over someone who panics. I don't have any MOPP gear and I'm not rushing out to get it. I'm not trying to play down the dangers of bio/chem warfare either... but by the time I'm aware of such an attack, it's already too late to don the MOPP gear. So unless everyone's going to walk around wearing it 24/7, it's a waste of money. I can think of hundreds of scenarios where people could be killed in our country. I can think of hundreds of conventional, and unconventional weapons that could be used. Sure, I'm in agreement with you that we should "harden" as many potential targets as we possibly can, but as long as we are only [i]reacting[/b] to the enemy, THEY have the initiative. And if you ask any commander, they'll tell you that a good way to LOSE a battle or war is to allow the enemy to retain the initiative and just react. We need to be PROACTIVE and go after the enemy and make them fight on OUR terms under our scenario. That gives US the initiative and keeps them off balance. But as long as we are a free, open and democratic society, we're going to be exposed and vunerable to attacks to at least some extent. And worrying about that beyond what we're able to control and influence is pointless. Phil O'Keefe Sound Sanctuary Recording Riverside CA http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html pokeefe777@msn.com

[Chip McDonald]

Kanatjan Alibekov Biopreparat Tularemia Marburg Ricin smallpox Interview with former head of Soviet bio-war program: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/plague/interviews/alibekov.html DARPA report on military grade anthrax: "The analysis of the threats we face today is much more complex than a decade ago, and potential errors that could lead to worst-case analyses abound, but as two naval analysts recently pointed out (10): "Functional distortion in intelligence analysis amounts to de- emphasis of security threats that may be acknowledged and real, but which existing forces can do little about, or that cannot be countered without significant investment in capabilities that differ from those in hand..." Ignoring the very real dangers in the evolving threat from biological agents would appear to fit into this precise category of distortion, and the consequences of that mistake could be extremely dangerous (11). " http://www.darpa.mil/dso/textonly/thrust/bwd/dando.html James Tuite/Staff Report to U.S. Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr.; Note VX developement in Iraq: http://www.chronicillnet.org/PGWS/tuite/ JAMA article on tularemia: http://jama.ama-assn.org/issues/v285n21/ffull/jst10001.html U.S. State department white paper on Iraq's chemical program; note casualty figures between 1983-88: http://www.state.gov/www/regions/nea/iraq_white_paper.html http://www.hopkins-biodefense.org/ http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH08fq0 ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Master Zap]

[quote]So, a howitzer is really just a bb gun?[/quote] The basic operating principles behind both are the same. I.e. "Howitzers are projectile weapons. Thats not so uncommon, you have a BB gun in your home, right? Thats a projectile weapon. Projectile weapons work by using a compressed gas of some sort to propel a projectile through a barrel to impact on a desired target" That (or the neurotoxic equivalent of that) is all he said in his article. Which is 100% correct. Calling it incorrect just makes you wrong and diminishes your other arguments credibility. You could have said a number of things about that comment (complain about the out-of-proportion harmlessness of bug nerve agent vs. military grade, for example), but saying it is WRONG was not the right thing. Saying the statement was "wrong" and "Al-Queda propaganda" just removes your credibility and gets you precicely nowhere. In the logic fallacy department this is called a "strawman argument". /Z

[GuitarMan]

Hey guys ... it's stuff like this forum and this debate right here... thats makes me appreciate what America is ... I learn more here than from any media conglomerate pap. I believe that free speech and open debate is our best chance at groking our current situation. I started this ball rolling by posting SFC Thomas communique here and it has been usefull to me personally to be party to this discussion. Every American should be giving this matter careful thought so that we can move through our lives confidently... to me this does not mean whistleing in the dark or sticking our heads in a hole but rather understanding the situation to the best of our ability, doing what we decide is needed to be prepared,(this may or may not be simply being aware and alert) and then proceeding with the affairs of life. I especially appreciate Chips input here as he has provided usefull information and been the primary catalyst for debate. THANK YOU CHIP! There is much to consider and assimilate. Best to you all, Andrew

[aeon]

Chip, I think you have to realize that you engaged in behavior that would alienate most people to your argument even if you had all of your facts in order and they realized it was correct. You made a personal attack against an individual that was not able to defend himself or counter your argument. For example, I quote you (admittedly out of context, but interested parties can review your posts at leisure) below: [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]

[*]This guy isn't an expert on bio/chemical warfare. He's full of crap. [*]This guy is dangerous. [*]This is ridiculous. This guy is spewing propaganda for Al Qaeda. [*]This guy is the King Bozo. [*]Again - this guy is a putz, or a vassal of bin Laden/Hussein/Khadaffi/whoever. [*]No, I take that back, he just sounds like a good 'ol bo redneck.

[/b][/quote] Instead of attacking his ideas, you attacked him personally. You lost a lot of credibility in my view right there. You also disregarded the caveats and request at the end of the article to not nitpick and think up specific scenarios where his advice isn't the best. He clearly defined the context in which the article was written: [quote]Originally posted by SFC Red Thomas (Ret): [b]This letter is supposed to help the greatest number of people under the greatest number of situations.[/b][/quote] So when tomjonesmusic asked you in good faith to present some documentation to back up your allegations, you replied: [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]No, I'm not going to post 3 pages of "information".[/b][/quote] What was your implied meaning behind putting the word [i]information[/i] in quotes? Also, you chose to reply to a number of people in this thread, but when a fellow citizen (botch@netutah.net ) with [i]sixteen years of experience in the Air Force and four years experience as a Nuclear Weapons Safety engineer, who has undergone nuclear and biochem training,[/i] humbly offers his opinion and concurs with the article, you do not address him at all. You responded to a number of people in this thread, myself included, in a condescending and patronizing manner. Again, I quote you below: [quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b]

[*]I suppose it falls into the "if I can't see it it isn't there" category. [*]I suppose Ebola is kind of like getting a bad cold.... [*]So, a howitzer is really just a bb gun? [*]Go back and read the whole thread. [*]Ok, 10 pts. to you for catching me in a semantic mistake.

[/b][/quote] Would it be overly pedantic to suggest you address your fellow musicplayer.com patrons with a little more respect? Last, semantic error or otherwise, accuracy in information contributes to one’s credibility in debate. I corrected you, and you continued to engage the point in error. Thanks for the 10 points, but who made you referee? I don’t think anyone questions the fact that nuclear and biochem weapons have the capability to produce tremendous degrees of human suffering, terror and death. I do think people have come to question your credibility and motives based on your actions and behavior in this thread. That is regrettable, because I believe it would serve people well to become educated to the degree they need to be (as defined by what actions they could take in defense) regarding these weapons. The original post by SFC Red Thomas (Ret) attempted to do just that. Did you?

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by pokeefe777@msn.com: [b] Essentially, yes. The difference is just a matter of scale. [/b][/quote] Sigh. I don't understand the semantical bent everyone suddenly has. BUT - it's not just a matter of scale. It's oversimplification using bug spray as a comparison. They're not all organophosphate derivitives, and while they have cholinergic effects like "bug spray", the manner in which they create these effects are not all the same. BUT THAT'S NOT THE POINT. Nothing in my post was "pro-panic", nothing said "we should all become hermits". The point to my post was to balance something I see as being tilted in a false direction. From what I know of *modern* chemical/bio weapons, the original post constitutes misinformation by down playing a threat through mischaracterization. That could lead to problems down the road: the general populace doesn't think it's a worthy enough threat to throw money at perhaps, or if something does happen, doesn't take appropriate action because they're too cavalier about it. That's counter-productive and dangerous IMO. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by aeon@mediaone.net: [b]Chip, I think you have to realize that you engaged in behavior that would alienate most people to your argument even if you had all of your facts in order and they realized it was correct.[/b][/quote] I admit it was out of character to behave in a reactionary fashion; however, the seriousness of our current state of affairs influenced my post. I also made the mistake of thinking people are more aware of advanced bio/chemical weapons that are loose in the world, but that's not my mission. [b]You made a personal attack against an individual that was not able to defend himself or counter your argument. [/b] He's taking the position of educating the public on a subject that can potentially affect a lot of people. If he was taking a position that advocated a conservative approach, it would be different; instead he's advocating a reckless attitude towards some very dangerous things. Given the current state of affairs, that warrants very deliberate attention IMO. [b]For example, I quote you (admittedly out of context, but interested parties can review your posts at leisure) below: Would it be overly pedantic to suggest you address your fellow musicplayer.com patrons with a little more respect?[/b] A) He's not a fellow musicplayer.com patron. B) His article was beligerent in tone, if not blatantly condescending C) What he's talking about isn't guitar strings, but the general public's attitude relative to bio/chemical weapons. D) The arrogance of a non-expert choosing to put out a treatise for dissemination to the general public on how they should regard bio/chemical weapons does not beg for respect. [b]Last, semantic error or otherwise, accuracy in information contributes to one’s credibility in debate. I corrected you, and you continued to engage the point in error. Thanks for the 10 points, but who made you referee?[/b] You corrected me on a semantic point; misuse of a term does not mean the position taken is wrong. As far as 10 pts. is concerned - the only person here who has been personally attacked is me, and despite that fact I don't seem to be behaving in a reciprocally aggresive fashion you'll note. It would appear I am a lone player among about 10 referees at the moment. [b]terror and death. I do think people have come to question your credibility and motives based on your actions and behavior in this thread.[/b] Hey, you know what - I don't care what people think of my credibility. I post here because it's relatively entertaining and amusing. In fact, this whole response has been fairly interesting, although surprising I suppose. Credibility? I'm a college dropout musician. I don't expect credibility. I do expect more awareness, but that's a bad judgment on my part. [b] That is regrettable, because I believe it would serve people well to become educated to the degree they need to be (as defined by what actions they could take in defense) regarding these weapons. The original post by SFC Red Thomas (Ret) attempted to do just that.[/b] His post did nothing to educate people on bio/chemical agents that could be used on us today. He outlined behavior that is only consistent with a limited set of circumstances, circumstances that do no apply today. What he suggests one do in these circumstances is very well and good, but they're presented within the context that the (para) "media is scaring people" and that "experts are scaring people". Because of that context, the implication is that there's nothing to fear outside of these circumstances. The problem there being that there are situations outside of these circumstances that people should be educated on at the same time. By closing the situation in this manner it creates either a false sense of security, or a warped point of view. That's dangerous IMO. [b]Did you?[/b] Unlike this guy, I did not take it upon myself to educate the public. Although, I think that a person reads the information I presented in the links I provided (all from reputable U.S. government sources) in my separate post are much more comprehensive and educational. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Master Zap: [b] The basic operating principles behind both are the same. I.e. Which is 100% correct. Calling it incorrect just makes you wrong and diminishes your other arguments credibility.[/b][/quote] The argument is obviously not a semantical one. A chemical that is transmitted to a person through the air, regardless of whether it is called a vapor, gas, nerve agent, or compound that instantly kills on contact doesn't care what it's called. Chemicals that don't exhibit the behavior as described by this guy - chemicals that rise instead of sink, kill instantly on contact, linger on a surface for days, doesn't care what the temperature is, OR is of biological origin - again doesn't care how this guy worded his article. [b]You could have said a number of things about that comment (complain about the out-of-proportion harmlessness of bug nerve agent vs. military grade, for example), [/b] I agree. It was a mistake thinking is was common knowledge of things such as VX, Ricin, tumerelia, generically modified biologics. The referee awards you 10 more pts. [b]but saying it is WRONG was not the right thing.[/b] This is what's curious. This has become a semantical sparring match; I would think it was self-evident I was not saying his information taken alone was wrong, but that his presentation of the topic as being wrong. This required all readers to have knowledge advanced agents that makes his position reckless IMO. My mistake, but I stand buy my position that he's presented the *dangers of the topic* wrong. [b] Saying the statement was "wrong" and "Al-Queda propaganda" just removes your credibility and gets you precicely nowhere.[/b] There is a concept known as "rhetoric" that apparently is something not as self-evident as I would imagine it is online. Bill O'Riley must have the current license. [b]In the logic fallacy department this is called a "strawman argument". [/b] Sigh. ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[Master Zap]

Chip The problem here, is that this is the Internet. The "Abyss of Incorrect Information", the "Flood of False Data", the pinnacle of "Legitimate looking Bullshit". Hence, [i]how[/i] you present your information is more important than [i]ever[/i]. I am not entirely disagreeing with your overall concept (this guy is severly underplaying the risks), but I am wholeheartedly opposed to the manner in which you did it. Get it? /Z