samboct
Posts: 1817
Joined: 1/17/2007
Status: offline
|
Muttling
May I suggest being a little more skeptical about what you read?
The UN source does list ABC (atomic biological and chemical WMD) but fails to give any examples of chemical. I suspect that plutonium would fit their definition- as does botulinum toxin, but sarin, VX and similar compounds do not. Other than a highly toxic radiological- I don't know of any chemical compounds that would fit the definition. I'm using botulinum toxin as a yardstick- a dose of 70 ug will theoretically kill a human (extrapolation from primate studies) if left untreated. Hence, this fits the definition of WMD, but there are no examples of chemical WMD.
Here's an article in JAMA that illustrates with why taking everything in the scientific literature as gospel is problematic-
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/285/8/1059
So let's break things down a bit-
The molecule of botulinum toxin is an enzyme which falls apart above 85C (water boils at 100C) which is why cooked food doesn't cause botulism- the disease. Botulism these days kills 6% of its victims- the treatments have gotten pretty good- and yes, they use a form of this stuff to inject into wrinkles. The bacteria can be readily found in the ground. Shin Aum Rikyo- the Japanese killer cult tried making the stuff to kill people- IIRC, they took a truck, drove it down downtown Tokyo, but in what must have been an annoying turn of events for them- nobody even got sick.
Although the article claims that Iraq was developing a weaponized botulinum toxin, I don't agree. Why do I say this stuff didn't get weaponized? Because I have no idea how you'd convert a liquid into a very finely dispersed cloud of a large size using an explosive, if you can't let the liquid reach the boiling point of water. If you impart enough energy into a droplet to make it travel a significant distance, you'll cook it. So even though the article discusses weaponized botulinum toxin, there is no evidence to show that it exists. What the authors in the article are discussing is some 19,000 L of botulinum toxin, some 10,000 L which they claim was loaded onto missiles. All of this was known before the invasion.
However- an analogy to this stuff as a weapon is like saying that Saddam had collected lots of spent uranium fuel from a reactor and was going to use it to make a bomb. Absent any method of purifying the stuff though and a working bomb design, it's not much of a threat. Nor was Saddam's 19,000 L of botulinum toxin without a working delivery system.
Missiles aren't a threat-A crop duster would be scarier, but again, a crop duster flying over NYC is going to have to fly high enough so that most of the liquid is going to be dispersed and hit the sides of buildings before it does anything to the people in the street. And as noted, ideally you'd want a finer spray to make the stuff go further. Wind conditions have to be correct as well.
Why do I say that without characterization tools Saddam was toothless? Because in order to weaponize botulinum toxin, odds are you'd want something a bit more robust- something that can take say boiling and not fall apart. This requires doing some good chemistry and being able to characterize what you're doing-you have to modify the molecule- change its' structure. If you can't do that, you're stuck with what nature gives you- which really isn't a very practical weapon.
The dispersion problem is I think what stymied both the US and the Russians in attempting to develop biological weapons. (The article doesn't cover the US efforts in Utah to develop biological weapons which strikes me as a curious omission.) It certainly means that the Iraqis were never close to a practical weapon. Want another analogy? Is a heap of gunpowder a weapon? Or does it need the machinery to make ammunition and rifles to become a weapon?
Here's the simple question- has anyone ever used botulinum toxin successfully on the battlefield or on civilian targets to kill anyone? I don't think so.
As a speculation- I think that Osama got the idea of CLAIMING he had biological WMD from us. Reagan managed to face down the Russians using SDI as a threat. While the whole idea of SDI was ludicrous, the Russians bought it, figuring that Yankee ingenuity would make it work- after all why spend billions of dollars on something that can't work? Communism was coming unglued for a whole boatload of economic reasons, but apparently they also took the threat of SDI seriously. I suspect that was Saddam's goal too-claim that even though he didn't have nuclear weapons, he had missiles loaded with botulinum toxin instead. The fact that if when the missiles warhead went off, all of the stuff would fall apart and be harmless was irrelevant. But all of this was known before we invaded Iraq- so my original comment holds. Why did we only listen to the canary and disregard the physical evidence? If somebody manufacturing a weapon, there has to be a facility.
Sam
|
RE: Defining Victory in Iraq - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread