Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military
From: HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: US to use chemical weapons?
Message-ID: <1990Aug28.043142.404@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 28 Aug 90 04:31:42 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 19
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
As none of the Western nations desire to fight among the oilfields and
installations due to the enormous cost of replacing plant, what options
are available except chemical weapons?  The US, as far as I am aware
went through a pantomine performance with (then Vice) President Bush
agreeing to destroy all chemical weapons, but in reality storing ten
percent of the stock in permanent form (or until all the other nations
entirely dispose of their stocks :-) as binary agents.

Furthermore, isn't the Western head shaking and hand wringing over the
Iraqi use of chemical weapons more proof of the infectiousness of
hypocrisy?  Afterall, if Agent Orange wasn't a chemical weapon perhaps we
should all have a post-prandial paraquat.

Jerry Harper:
Computer Science Dept, University College Dublin, Dublin 4,IRELAND
harper@ccvax.ucd.ie