Talk:Weapons of mass destruction

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Say What?!

"a more stable state that does not threaten international order should be able to use Weapons of Mass Destruction peacefully" Does this suggest that using WMDs on your own population is a peaceful use? Is it possible to have a peaceful use of a weapon of mass destruction? --Mtur 17:13, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe one could use bombs as bridge abutments? Crackertalk 17:15, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I know Saddam used WMD on his own population. We're talking about stable states here, not Saddam's Iraq. Affirmlife 03:42, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

One can argue ... anything

"One can argue that the earliest weapon of Mass Destruction was the Israelite Samson, who was the instrument of God in killing a large number of the various Canaanite tribes (Judges)."

And the point of making the aforementioned "argument" would be...? That since (arguably) WMDs are "in the Bible" they're OK by God?McTavidge 06:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I do think you're missing the point. Deterrence, from peaceful nations having WMDs, is the only reason we have the globalized society we do now. Affirmlife 12:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, if that's the point, maybe it could be spelled out clearly (instead of merely hinted at) -- and supported by a citation. Sounds like a lot to rest on just one factor.McTavidge 22:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
If you really want to put the bible into it, remember that God did kill all of humanity, raze several cities, and destroy livestock and firstborn sons. Of course, God is the first and ultimate WMD.

Boeing 747

Since when has a 747 had anything to do with weapons of mass destruction? ColinR 00:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Since September 11th, 2001. Momoka 00:55, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
None of the planes was a 747. Furthermore, planes aren't considered weapons of mass destruction. ColinR 00:57, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
It's an example of duel use technology; with the proper knowhow, i.e. training, a civilian aircraft was transformed into a kamikazi missile that killed 2900+ persons, i.e. a weapon of mass destruction. RobS 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Revamping

This article is in need of a severe revamp to eliminate POV, make it more like an encyclopedia entry, and get rid of irrelevant information. ColinR 01:05, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Go right ahead then.--Crackertalk 01:08, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Irrelevant

To date, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, although the possibility that they were exported to a neighboring country is still open.

Just out of curiosity, how can this be irrelevant to the subject of Saddam Hussein and WMD's? Granted, it presently bears somewhat of a liberal slant, but this could be fixed just by clarifying that the WMD's were most likely destroyed or exported prior to investigation. Feebasfactor 22:45, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Well, the US funded the Manhattan project to the tune of $4 billion (about $80 billion in todays money) to prevent Hitler from getting WMD first. Turns out, Hitler didn't even have a nuke program and I don't hear anyone calling for FDR's impeachment, or what a scam, fraud, and bogus war that was. Rob Smith 23:41, 20 November 2007 (EST)

Hitler definitly had a nuke program. --Stitch75 03:52, 29 June 2008 (EDT)

If Hitler was seeking WMD's from other countries and looking to develop a nuke program, like Saddam was, then I would say to include it in the article. Obviously he wasn't, so we haven't. But considering that the article specifically addresses Saddam's looking to arm himself with WMD's, why shouldn't we inform readers as to what the eventual outcome was? Why would we exclude that relevant information? He did have an interest, he did have a program - what happened to all that? The article should give some idea, at least. Feebasfactor 14:57, 1 December 2007 (EST)

Telegraph Article and WMDs...

C'mon, surely you can do better than that. That article is dated July 2004 - three and a half years ago. More importantly, it *speculates* that WMDs may have been transported - it offers no evidence that this was the case. I'll change the article to reflect what your little article actually says into you can produce something with evidence that those mysterious WMDs are somewhere else. Good luck.Claude 17:51, 5 December 2007 (EST)

You are still missing the point here and in numerous other discussions: no one ever said "WMD stockpiles", only the liberal media and other assorted types said so after the 2003 invasion. We are just not going to allow that kind of historical revisionism here. Rob Smith 18:29, 5 December 2007 (EST)

Well, *I* never said anything about stockpiles, so I don't know what you're getting at with that. My edit only brought the article in line with the evidence given.Claude 18:36, 5 December 2007 (EST)

WMD Are ONLY Weapons

According to U.S. law, WMD are restricted only to weapons of mass destruction. The know-how and production facilities, on their own, are NOT considered Weapons of Mass Destruction. As the name indicates, as well as the law, WMD are ONLY the weapons themselves. To be specific:

(1) Any explosive, incendiary, poison gas, bomb, grenade, or rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces [113 g], missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce [7 g], or mine or device similar to the above. (2) Poison gas. (3) Any weapon involving a disease organism. (4) Any weapon that is designed to release radiation at a level dangerous to human life.

Ergo, the article I believe should be changed to reflect the American law definition of WMD, rather than CP's perception of WMD.

Removal

I removed the statement as it is far too subjective, although Iraq and North Korea do occasionally act in discordance with the international community, even combined they have invaded less countries, sponsored less coups, and supported international law more than certain other countries which possess WMD's while insisting others do not. TheGuy 16:15, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Personal tools