Skip to comments.Saddam's deadly secret
Posted on 11/18/2001 7:15:11 PM PST by Wallaby
click here to read article
Has anyone come across the identity of those congress members?
Anthrax, weaponized in the manner of the sample sent to Majority Leader Daschle, is an almost perfect weapon of mass destruction. A suitcase full of it could kill three million people -- 10-100X more than one of the "suitcase nukes" we are all supposed to be worried about. Unlike a nuclear weapon, which gives off tell-tale radiation, there is absolutely no way to detect an anthrax stash remotely. Unlike a nuclear weapon, anthrax has an essentially infinite shelf-life. Unlike a nuclear weapon, anthrax can be handled safely without elaborate safety precautions; it only needs to be kept in a sealed container until use. And, like a suitcase nuke, anthrax can be delivered to its target on foot or by automobile -- no ICBMs required.
For all the above reasons, it was not very smart to pull our weapons inspectors out of Iraq three years ago. It looks like the genie is out of the bottle. Forget about arms control. No treaty, no inspectors, no verification is going to do anything about this threat. Game over. We are f***ed.
the headline i really want to see:
All well and good, but in the long run, it won't change a blessed thing. The problem is that a growing chunk of the world's population is afflicted with an infectious mental disorder that masquerades as a "religion".
Or more precisely, that's half the problem. The other half of the problem is that the West is afflicted with a mental disorder that masquerades as "civilization". I'm talking about "political correctness". The result is a lopsided match, where the other side engages in every dirty street-fighting tactic in the book, while we stand there with the Marquis of Queensbury rules, ever diligently applying them to ourselves.
Add in the fact that the adversary's population is multiplying like rabbits, and the West is doing quite the opposite, and you've got a formula for a very ugly future. Perhaps uglier than any time this world has ever seen.
In a way it's no wonder the government sugar-coats so much of the news it releases. With "the masses" sated by sitcoms, sports-overload, cheap beer by the gutload, and all the Chinese trinkets money can buy, it strains credulity to imagine that they'd react to a dose of un-buffered truth with anything better than a total breakdown.
In the long run, of course, truth will out. So, it can be argued that it's unconscionable to not let it all hang out now. But, I don't buy that. I'm too much the pragmatist. Delaying the inevitable does have merit.
Required reading for the rest of us:
But I don't think this analysis is right. If this is what he's trying, it's intolerable to us, and we will destroy his regime. Yes, he may distribute some anthrax, and the results may be terrible, but they will be temporary, and he will lose; after his loss, he will be reviled throughout history in the Muslim world for the destruction he brought down on them. We need to make absolutely clear to him that this is what will happen, and possibly he'll be deterred.
In another sense, though, the problem is deeper than you're suggesting. Technology is changing the balance of power in the world; small groups of people and relatively weak countries can now command huge amounts of energy, increasingly huge as technology advances. There is no actual defense against these kinds of attacks; the only defense is offense. I'm afraid this will require a continuous staying action, and I don't know if it will ultimately be successful, over, say, the next century.
This is what happened when the Roman Empire fell and Europe entered the Middle Ages. Power couldn't be effectively projected over large areas any more, because of technological changes, and Europe split into many small fiefdoms. This slowed progress dramatically (more borders limit trade, they limit communication, they reduce the spread of new ideas, etc.). (I believe similar changes happened in China at about the same time, lending credence to the idea that this was driven by technological changes. It's been a long time since I've read Chinese history though, and I'd have to look it up again.)
Needless to say, I hope this analogy is wrong. Maybe we can learn from history so it comes out differently this time around.
That is all that I am suggesting. You talk about it as if it was a trivial thing. I don't think the Soviets considered it a trivial thing. Soviet nuclear parity with the United States shaped world affairs for forty years.
Found out about this article here: http://www.irandidban.com/archive/gallery/gallerypage27.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.