...WMD is a misleading category, that chem & bio weapons aren't in the same class as nukes.
@Charmantides I'm acknowledging a potential objection, not agreeing with the argument.
-
-
@St_Rev Ok then, then being devils advocate Id say nuclear weapons used in the right way would be as big a deal and loathed as chem and bio -
@Charmantides The point I'm focusing on here is: The often repeated claim that 'there were no WMDs' is a lie. -
@St_Rev In Iraq? There really weren't. Recently been reading about it. "How to build a nuclear bomb" There was between 1991 and 1998 -
@Charmantides Erm. The WMD category includes nuclear, bio and chem weapons. Iraq had bio and chem. I just said this. -
@St_Rev Not since 1998. -
@Charmantides They didn't have active programs by 2003. They had small caches of usable chemical weapons, and they had chem/bio equipment. -
@St_Rev Oh I see. Difference is in their usage as I said. If Sadam had used them locally that would be a UN security issue. -
@Charmantides Again, I'm just saying: there were WMDs in Iraq. They kept finding more even as late as 2010. - 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
@St_Rev What you basically describe is why unilateralism doesn't work for nuclear weapons and not other WMDS. Thats why.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
. Banned in Sweden. SubGenius, Zhuangist, white-hat troll. Defrocked mathematician. Brain problems.