[error99]

Or even a little BZ gas would be cool...

[Born to Conserve]

Well, It's against international law for one.

O'course if yer fer tit fer tat, go fer it!

[c-five]

IMO, it's not necessary. Not the tool for the job. It can cause problems you don't want downwind. Butane is heavier than air too, and can be made to dissipate very quickly and with spectacular effect when mixed with air in a confined space.

[danielobvt]

Accuracy. Compared to the spread of our conventional weapons, these things are covering a huge area. Collateral damage bad!
Plus we are better than them. We understand the concept of restraint. These bad guys would use these weapons if they could. We don't use them even though we could.

[Nateman]

This game was played in World War one. The results were so horrible that both sides wanted to discontinue its use. Its better to have a bunch in reserve to use in case they use it first. If the initiating side knows you got more and better stuff  ready to use they realize that using it just hands you an advantage that your side was otherwise unwilling to use.

If we find that Bin Laden is responsible for the Anthrax attacks, then its time to use that on his people right back. In the meanwhile we should make sure we have a bunch of the weaponized stuff ready to use.

[ChemistCat]

Unnecessarily sloppy; too dependent upon chaotic variables, and will provoke worldwide disapproval WAAAAY out of proportion to how effective it would be. Nerve gas couldn't accomplish anything, really, that more conventional stuff can't do better. When we know where Bin Laden and all his blood kin and compatriots are, I'm for the use of burrowing nukes. I would like to see some palaces in Iraq have sudden, catastrophic foundation damage, as well.

[null and void]

Worst case: We capture Osama - Numerous terroriast acts to get him released. No guarantee of conviction, given the degraded state of US jurisprudence.

2nd Worst case: We kill Osama. - Makes him a martyr.

3rd worst case: The Taliban kills Osama - Still a martyr, but anger is not as directly focused on the US.

Best case (IMHO) We flatten Afghanistan, and Osama "escapes"...
We hear that he is in Iraq. Flatten Iraq, Osama "escapes"...
We hear he is in Lybia. Flatten Lybia, Osama "escapes"...
Repeat as needed until all terror exporting countries stop...

[havoc1us]

Remember, Bush said a few days post 9/11, that the ensuing battles *may or may not* have a conventional component, and that there were going to be covert operations that remain secret, even in success. If it's an appropriate tool for a particular job, I would hope he would authorize the military to use this, one of "all means available, any means necessary" to win this one. I wouldn't be surprised to hear rumors being discredited by the Administration about Al-quieda soldiers writhing in the caves like bugs on RAID, and big bright flashes of light in the desert. ;-). Just an opinion.

[Cicero]

Nerve gas is relatively cheap and easy to make. A lot of small third-world nations have it. So the last thing we need is to break the general agreement against poison gas that has prevailed, with a few dishonorable exceptions, since the end of the First World War.

The same applies to nuclear weapons. We should not use them lightly, but reserve them as a response for a major chemical, biological, or nuclear attack on us.

It's not in our national interest to break the taboo against poison gas, because we have much more to lose by it than most of our potential opponents.

[womanvet]

Without discussing the tactical difficulties of using chemicals such as gas, which is so dependent on weather, if I did plan to use nerve gas, I would not broadcast that news to anyone -- not even legislators or governors, all of whom have been known to leak secrets to Eisner's and Turner's Islamic News Networks.

And, considering the political problems that might arise, if I did use such weapons, I would definitely deny any knowledge of it, and point the finger of blame at right-wing midwestern pagan talk-show listeners...