From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Sat Sep 04 1999 - 08:43:08 MDT
In a message dated 09/04/1999 9:15:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
GBurch1@aol.com writes:
> State terrorism has also been surprisingly limited. Saddam Hussein COULD
> have used chemical or biological warheads in his SCUDs, but didn't.
Hitler
> could have, but didn't use biological or chemical weapons on the
battlefield.
>
> Why?
>
> I don't propose to have an answer for these questions, but they do point
to
> some limiting factors that curtail the frequency with which WMDs are used.
> Of course, the problem with advanced nanotech is that it presumably lowers
> the threshold for an isolated Bad Crazy to build a WMD. If it only
> increases
> the danger by a factor of ten, the effect could be devastating.
I believe Adolph didn't employ biologicals, because, although some work was
being done in devastating plagues, German intelligence (abwehr) had confirmed
a UK-Canada-USA-Aussie "leadership" in this area. The Nazis did have a great
lead in chemical weapons, however, and had developed Nerve agents, between
1936-1939 at I.G. Farben ( a company which had been stolen from its Jewish
owner in 1934). The chemicals are the gases/agents were soman, tabun, and
sarin. I believe, the nazis were terrified of reprisals, especially by
Britain.
Saddam Hussein also had to be concerned about Israeli strikes, if he used
bio or chem agents. He was well-aware, it appears, that the Israelis would
not simply be content with sending the Republican Guard packing; as the USA
was in 1991.
Conclusion: Even the bloodthirsty/crazzies fear "un-acceptable dammages" that
would un-ravel their rule. They may not know reason; but they understand pain.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:05:01 MST