Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnews!military
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US to use chemical weapons?
Message-ID: <1990Sep2.060840.2817@cbnews.att.com>
Date: 2 Sep 90 06:08:40 GMT
Sender: military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 27
Approved: military@att.att.com



From: sun!sunburn.West.Sun.COM!gtx!qip!john (John Moore)

>From: HARPER%ccvax.ucd.ie@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU
] 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.

I realize that this is verging on the political, but lets get some
facts straight:
  Agent Orange was not sprayed to disable or kill troops. It was sprayed
  as a defoliant. There is very little evidence that it is harmful,
  even though a number of studies have been made of Vietnam Veterans
  exposed to it. I have read a number of these studies and find them
  quite convincing. The US Centers for Disease Control recently completed
  a large study on the subject, and their report is available by a
  phone call if you are a VietNam veteran. The executive summary is
  available in any case (although I don't know about overseas shipment).
  In my opinion, the executive summary is a good abstract of the
  detailed report. I have both.

Thus to call Agent Orange a chemical weapon is incorrect in a military
sense. This is, after all, a military news group.

John Moore   asuvax!anasaz!john