Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!att!cbnews!military From: convex!cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: No options in the oilfields but chemical warfare? Message-ID: <1990Oct4.012221.11150@cbnews.att.com> Date: 4 Oct 90 01:22:21 GMT References: <1990Sep28.014351.13736@cbnews.att.com> <1990Sep29.155131.7378@cbnews.att.com> Sender: military-request@att.att.com Organization: Convex Computer Corporation, Richardson, Tx. Lines: 28 Approved: military@att.att.com From: convex!cash@uunet.UU.NET (Peter Cash) In article <1990Sep29.155131.7378@cbnews.att.com> ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) writes: >From: Allan Bourdius >I find it highly unlikely that the US or any other allied nation would >employ chemical weaponry. Chemical weapons would be extremely tricky to >use in a desert area because of the climate (lots of shifting winds). >We wouldn't want to have our own weapons blow back on ourselves. Despite these considerations, the Iraqis seem to have used chemical weapons to some effect against their enemies. I think the rationale for any use of chemical weapons by the US would be to equalize the handicap imposed on us by the enemy's (first) use of such weapons. If the Iraqis used chemical weapons, our troops would have to move around in protective clothes, and they would be hampered by decontamination measures. It would be only prudent to see that the opposition is slowed down to an equal degree. (We would not, of course, ever use chemical weapons on unprotected civilian population centers.) -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | Die Welt ist alles, was Zerfall ist. | Peter Cash | (apologies to Ludwig Wittgenstein) |cash@convex.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~