Seems the Chinese hate some olympians...

[oso97]

Originally Posted by Philistine

I've always preferred NBC when talking about all three programs, or in a more technical setting.

I generally find WMD to be overly politicized in that it is often used to (correctly) describe a chemical weapons program, while suggesting an existing or imminent nuclear program.

In these circumstances I think it is both more accurate and less loaded to actually refer to the programs/weapons being discussed -- e.g. chemical weapons.

The existence of mustard gas shouldn't suggest nuclear weapons--it's just silly.

Anyhoo--my $.02.

--Philistine

Except that it has been a bedrock principle of modern diplomacy that a germ = a gas = a nuke. Like it or not, this is the situation that exists today.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by oso97

Except that it has been a bedrock principle of modern diplomacy that a germ = a gas = a nuke. Like it or not, this is the situation that exists today.

I disagree--it's been my understanding that chemical weapons capability is, and always has been, treated quite differently than nuclear capability.

Of course, this isn't based on anything concrete--so I'm willing to be persuaded--but for how long do you contend it has been a bedrock principal? Only since the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention? Or before?

--Philistine

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by Philistine

I disagree--it's been my understanding that chemical weapons capability is, and always has been, treated quite differently than nuclear capability.

I agree. While the three are usually rolled together for convenience's sake, and none would be used in anything but the most dire or desparate military action (most nations, at least), nuclear weapons still receive a lot more attention.

If Iran were developing mustard gas or sarin, I think the international response would be less robust. Biological agents are still relatively new, so I think there's a lot more fear from them due to the unknown effects, at least as far as the general public. With nukes, though, you're talking about the ability to wipe cities off the planet in a single strike and long term radiation, so they're going to get the most attention for some time.

Chemical weapon development is also much easier than nuclear weapon development, so it's much tougher to monitor and police.

[Gav]

Biological agents are still relatively new ...

Not true.

They've been in use since... ohhhhhhh a long long long time.

Don't believe me? Read more history.

[Insipiens]

Originally Posted by Grimaldi

Chemical weapon development is also much easier than nuclear weapon development, so it's much tougher to monitor and police.

I think this is probably why in the news reporting WMD is taken to refer to nuclear. Basically there appears to be very little effort to prevent proliferation of chemical weapons (although I believe there is an international treaty on this). So if there is a news story about Iran or elsewhere and WMD it will inevitably be nuclear weapons that get into the news.

[Grimaldi]

Originally Posted by Gav

Not true.

They've been in use since... ohhhhhhh a long long long time.

Don't believe me? Read more history.

I'm well aware of the various biological means of warfare in ancient history. To compare hurling rotten cattle into besieged castles or giving smallpox infested blankets to native Americans with current attempts to weaponize things like anthrax is a bit of a stretch, though. I mean yes, they both involve the delivery of biological agents through manmade means, but there wasn't the same deliberate research into improving these techniques that you see today. It's not like cows were specifically bred to be better pestulance carriers for these sorts of operations, or experiments were done on what to add to their carcasses to get the right kind of disease to develop and store for future use.

If Al Qaeda flew a plane over New York and dropped a rotting cow carcas, you wouldn't be reading about a biological attack on Manhattan the next day.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

I think you're underestimating the lurid nature of some of the NYC tabloid coverage!

Did I read somewhere that Hannibal used a weaponized form of rabies on the battlefield...or was that a fiction book loosely based on historical accounts? Speaking of the history of biological warfare:

• 600 BC: Assyrians poisoned the wells of their enemies with rye ergot, which affected those ingesting it with sickness or death. The fungus that causes ergot produces ergotamine, a hallucinogen similar in chemistry and effects to LSD. Ergot poisoning causes delusions, paranoia, myoclonic twitches, seizures, and cardiovascular problems that can lead to death. Those affected seemed to go mad, which added the terror element and served to demoralize their comrades.

• 590 BC: During the siege of Cirrha, Solon of Athens is said to have used hellebore roots (a purgative) to poison the water in an aqueduct leading from the Pleistrus River. In that same era and area, Sparta used toxic smoke generated by burning wood dipped in a mixture of tar and sulfur during one of its wars with Athens.

• 400 BC: Sythian warriors reportedly dipped their arrows into decomposing bodies or in blood mixed with feces from diseased persons in the attempt to make even glancing wounds fester.

• 400 BC: Writings of the Mohist sect in China tell of the use of ox-hide bellows to pump smoke from furnaces in which balls of mustard and other toxic vegetable matter were being burnt into tunnels to discourage the besieging army from digging. The use of a toxic cacodyl (arsenic trioxide) smoke is also mentioned in early Chinese manuscripts. The Chinese may have developed smoke-type weapons for use in war as a result of their practice of fumigation of dwellings to eliminate fleas (know to have been practiced by the Chinese as long ago as the Seventh Century BC); or, according to other speculations, from the Chinese philosophy that all matter faded into an insubstantial form, which may have led them to study the effects and properties of vapors. Chinese writings contain hundreds of recipes for the production of poisonous or irritating smokes for use in wars, and many reports of their actual use. For example, they created and used an irritating "five-league fog" made out of slow-burning gunpowder to which a variety of ingredients –including, notably, the excrement of wolves – was added.

• 300-100 BC: The Romans used bees and hornets as weapons by catapulting them at their enemies. Some historians blame this practice for a shortage of hives during the waning years of the Roman Empire.

• 190 BC: In the Battle of Eurymedon, the Carthaginian General Hannibal won a naval victory over King Eumenes II of Pergamum by catapulting pottery jars containing poisonous snakes onto the decks of his enemy's ships. This imaginative tactic apparently actually worked. According to a Roman historian:

"At first these projectiles excited the laughter of the combatants [King Eumenes' sailors], and they could not understand what it meant. But as soon as they saw their ships filled with snakes, terrified by the strange weapons and not knowing how to avoid them, they turned their ships about and retreated to their naval camp. Thus Hannibal overcame the arms of Pergamum by strategy." [From "Hannibal," a section of Vitae Excellentium Imperatorum ("Lives of Excellent Men") by Cornelius Nepos]

(this event was later memorialized by the Roman playwright Lucidious in the stage production: "Snakes on a Trireme.")

[erooMynohtnA]

• 1999 AD: I peed in some jerk's applejuice.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

• 2008 a.d.: Your confession is forwarded to The Hague and the "Crimes Against Humanity" prosecutor's office.

[Inquartata]

And A. Baldini's attorneys.

[Lemonaide]

Originally Posted by fencerchica

While obviously not ruling out concerns for human rights violations by the Chinese government, I take any "reporting" from WorldNutDaily with a generous pinch of salt. Are there any references available on this topic from more reputable sources?

Watch the news. There's a good amount of video footage of Chinese Police in riot gear clubbing people.