Double standard: We can make nasty-gas, but you can't...

US weapons secrets exposed
Julian Borger in Washington
Tuesday October 29, 2002
The Guardian

"Respected scientists on both sides of the Atlantic warned yesterday that the US is developing a new generation of weapons that undermine and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical warfare.

"The scientists, specialists in bio-warfare and chemical weapons, say the Pentagon, with the help of the British military, is also working on "non-lethal" weapons similar to the narcotic gas used by Russian forces to end last week's siege in Moscow.

"They also point to the paradox of the US developing such weapons at a time when it is proposing military action against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is breaking international treaties."
www.guardian.co.uk...

[Edited on 29-10-2002 by William]

Although the developement of these weapons would violate treaties.Is a non-lethal gas a weapon of mass destruction?

The problems with the Russian gas were unfortunate at worst irresponsable but certainly well intentioned.

When used in the circumstances in Moscow,if effective and safe,most people would welcome a solution with no loss of life.If however an effective gas could be developed with a reliable delivery system which could be used as a potential first strike weapon with little or no warning I think we could find that countries that felt threatened might be tempted to act pre-emptively.

And what ? The USA aren't nuts like Saddam. They would not gaze 100.000 Khurdes like Saddam did it. So, it's not a problem if the USA want to have new chemical weapons.

The problem with WMD is not the weapons themselves. The problem is coming from WHO has these WMD.

USA, Russia, France, Great-Brittain, even Red China have such WMD. But they'll not use it.

Also with Cuba & Fidel Castro. He could have WMD, he will not use them until he's notunder attack.He's a tyran of course, but he's not crazy.

The problem is coming from rogue states like North-Korea or Irak/Iran. These nations have crazy government.

The same with the cops. I'm not afraid when I see a cop with a gun. Even if this gun is a machinegun. But when I see a drugs dealers with a gun, even a little .22 caliber, I'm afraid !!!

Do you see what I mean ?

Have you read all the deceitful things the US has got up to over the years on this site? They can be described as irresponsible at best.

Secret Bases and such... why not read about them? It would scare the # out of you.

The US and Europe and government all over the world are crooked, and I for one am not going be be advocate for the least worst option.

"They also point to the paradox of the US developing such weapons at a time when it is proposing military action against Iraq on the grounds that Saddam Hussein is breaking international treaties."

massive paradox that it is. its not a question of WHO has chemical weapons, the point is that the US signed a treaty saying they wouldn't develop them, and now they are. if you want to talk about 'rogue states' that 'break international law' you can lump the US right in their with Iraq.

- qo.

"Everything that we see is a shadow cast by that which we do not see."

There is nothing, I repeat, NOTHING, that the US is second fiddle to in terms of weapons developement. We are conditioned to believe we're in this transparent society where we know what our gov. is up to. BAH!

Fantastic_Damage,

We have to do something. We can't stay without doing anything.

What do you want to do ?

What's your solution on this matter ( terrorism ) ?

Originally posted by quiet one

the point is that the US signed a treaty saying they wouldn't develop them, and now they are.

You do it on purpose or are you really so naive ? China, Russia, USA, everybody have signed agreements and didn't respect them. EVERYBODY !!!

So,be fair, and don't look ONLY the USA.
But look ALL the nations on earth.

yes but not every country is planning to bomb another one for perpetrating an act they are themselves guilty of.

don't you get it?
people are pissed off because the US is currently adopting a do as we say not as we do policy coupled with a holier than thou presentation of their own state.

It is the hypocracy and massive loss of life they are prepared to cause regardless of this hypocracy that is making everyone so angry.

frankly one suspects that if they continue to act as though their behaviour is accountable to no one, Iraq will be the last of theiur worries, sanctions and the threat of military intervention will start to come from their allies.

Quote;Lupe
frankly one suspects that if they continue to act as though their behaviour is accountable to no one, Iraq will be the last of theiur worries, sanctions and the threat of military intervention will start to come from their allies.

I agree with a lot of what you say but this last bit.Is that in a parallel universe?

Originally posted by Lupe_101
yes but not every country is planning to bomb another one for perpetrating an act they are themselves guilty of.

Speak with Taiwan about what the Chicoms want to do to them....You'll be surprised !


Posted by Lupe_101

Iraq will be the last of their worries, sanctions and the threat of military intervention will start to come from their allies.

Are u kidding ? Military threats from their allies ? May be you don't know it, but NOBODY can defeat the USA. And if my stupid prime minister want to attack the USA, he would have to do it without me, cuz I'll wear the US uniform and I'll shoot him with my M-16A2 !

And I don't care if I'm the only one in Belgium who think like this !!!!!!!!!!

I'll shoot them all too !!!!

ORIGINAL SIGNATORIES OF THE CONVENTION
JANUARY 13-15, 1993 AT PARIS, FRANCE
Afghanistan France Namibia
Albania Gabon Nauru
Algeria Gambia, The Netherlands
Argentina Georgia New Zealand
Australia Germany Niger
Austria Ghana Nigeria
Azerbaijan Greece Norway
Bangladesh Guatemala Pakistan
Belarus Guinea Papua New Guinea
Belguim Haiti Paraguay
Benin Holy See Peru
Bolivia Honduras Philippines
Brazil Hungary Poland
Brunei Iceland Portugal
Bulgaria India Romania
Burkina Indonesia Russia
Burma Iran San Marino
Burundi Ireland Senegal
Cambodia Israel Seychelles
Cameroon Italy Sierra Leone
Canada Japan Singapore
Cape Verde Kazakhstan Slovakia
Central African Republic Kenya Slovenia
Chile Korea, South South Africa
China Liberia Spain
Colombia Lithuania Sri Lanka
Comoros Luxembourg Sweden
Congo Madagascar Switzerland
Cook Islands Malawi Tajikistan
Costa Rica Malaysia Thailand
C�te d'Ivoire Mali Togo
Croatia Malta Tunisia
Cuba Marshal Islands Turkey
Cyprus Mauritania Uganda
Czech Republic Mauritius Ukraine
Denmark Mexico United Kingdom
Dominican Republic Micronesia, Federation United States
Ecuador States of Uruguay
El Salvador Moldova Venezuela
Equatorial Guinea Monaco Vietnam
Estonia Mongolia Western Samoa
Ethiopia Morocco Zaire
Fiji Zambia
Finland Zimbabwe


I wonder why Iraq didn't sign??????

Fact Sheet: The Biological Weapons Convention
U.S. says parties must move to strengthen pact

The following fact sheet on the Biological Weapons Convention was issued by the State Department's Bureau of Arms Control on May 22.

U.S. Department of State
Bureau of Arms Control
May 22, 2002

Fact Sheet: The Biological Weapons Convention

The 1975 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) establishes a global ban on biological weapons. Under its terms, countries undertake not to develop, produce, stockpile, or acquire biological agents or toxins "of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective, and other peaceful purposes," as well as weapons and means of delivery. One hundred forty-five countries, including the United States, have joined the treaty.

Unfortunately, the BWC has no mechanism for checking on compliance. Therefore, in 1994, member states established an Ad Hoc Group to "strengthen the Convention." From 1995 until July 2001, States Parties negotiated on a legally binding protocol to enhance transparency and promote compliance. In July 2001, however, the Bush Administration reluctantly concluded that the draft protocol would not enhance our confidence in compliance and would do little to deter those countries seeking to develop biological weapons.

The U.S. immediately embarked on efforts to find other, more effective ways to combat the BW threat, spurred by the unprecedented attack on the U.S. on September 11 and subsequent bioterrorism, which underscored the dangers posed by both determined State actors as well as non-State actors. While the BWC retains an important role, the U.S. believes we should also look beyond traditional arms control measures to deal with the complex and dangerous threat posed by BW.

Countering this threat will require a full range of measures -- tightened export controls, intensified non-proliferation dialogue, increased domestic preparedness and controls, enhanced biodefense and counterterrorism capabilities, and innovative measures against disease outbreaks, as well as the full compliance by all States Parties with the global ban.

The U.S. presented a package of "alternative measures" to strengthen the Convention to the Conference held in November 2001 to review the operation of the global ban. Our goals at the Conference were to highlight compliance concerns and gain support from all States Parties for our package and other measures that would address the biological weapons threat of today and the future. There was widespread support for U.S. and allied initiatives intended to strengthen the Convention through practical, national implementation measures and continuing expert meetings. The U.S. succeeded in raising worldwide awareness of the serious problem of noncompliance with the BWC.

The Review Conference adjourned on December 7, 2001 and will reconvene on November 11, 2002. At the time of adjournment there were major disagreements on several issues, including "the way forward" for strengthening the Convention and on how to reflect compliance concerns. The challenge that lies ahead before the Conference resumes in November is to develop a mutually acceptable approach, building on the foundation of the proposals and themes the U.S. tabled in November 2001.

Interesting that people would find the development and production of non-lethal chemical agents to be bad. The concept isn't a new one, as the Soviets had it in their arsenal years ago. The agent would be delivered by rockets and artillery fire and would cause the enemy to experience an extremely euphoric state with a drunken "Jimmy Crack Corn and I Don't Care" sense of half-lucid well-being. The Soviet troops could then bypass (or slaughter) their enemy and move on to their objective.

I am not in favor of it as it will cause a POW polulation problem and all the costs associated, whereas the old fashioned guns-bombs-rockets-nukes concept means only more body bags for the other side.
With everyone nowadays thinking POW's have the right to attorneys and cable TV's, we can't afford to many POW's.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but the USA have these chemical weapons since more than 2 decades. The " Golden Fogs " are their names.

Desorientation, no more will, feeling sleepy are some of their effects.

Right or not ?