Just a couple of points on the topic.
I think it's misleading for people to continue to use WMD like a blanket term. WMD is a term usually reserved for not only a deadly agent (chem/bio/radio) but the delivery system as well. VX in water-balloons is NOT a WMD because the area of effect is unlikely to effect "mass destruction". Some would even argue that the term should also be reserved for when such a delivery system can cover great distances and therefore poses an extraordinary threat.
That might seem purely semantic, but I think the broad sense of the term has been misused largely to stir up purely emotional responses (fear) in over the question of Iraq's capabilities. To ignore the difference in how the term is used is to miss what largely divided the UN over this crisis.(See Robin Cook's resignation speech for an example of this.)
I think we can all agree that Iraq most likely has chem/bio munitions that could be used on the battlefield and the coalition is wise to take every precaution. It just bothers me that incidents that could indicate the presence of these battlefield munitions will be refered to as "WMD" and therefore strike fear in the hearts of people in Idaho for no apparent reason.
As clark pointed out, the US reports that it has largely (if not completely) destroyed it's chem/bio agents. However, since the US does NOT allow for independent inspections or verifications (even though the CWC treaty might present a legal demand for it depending on how it's interpreted) I don't think it's fair to say that anyone who questions whether or not the military is sincere or honest in those reports is just giving in to "conspiracy theory". It might be cynical, but it's not irrational to think the US still has such weapons.
It might be argued that the US could do itself a huge favor and bolster it's image by allowing for independent verification under the provisions of the CWC treaty. I'm not sure how it could hurt.
I think it's misleading for people to continue to use WMD like a blanket term. WMD is a term usually reserved for not only a deadly agent (chem/bio/radio) but the delivery system as well. VX in water-balloons is NOT a WMD because the area of effect is unlikely to effect "mass destruction". Some would even argue that the term should also be reserved for when such a delivery system can cover great distances and therefore poses an extraordinary threat.
That might seem purely semantic, but I think the broad sense of the term has been misused largely to stir up purely emotional responses (fear) in over the question of Iraq's capabilities. To ignore the difference in how the term is used is to miss what largely divided the UN over this crisis.(See Robin Cook's resignation speech for an example of this.)
I think we can all agree that Iraq most likely has chem/bio munitions that could be used on the battlefield and the coalition is wise to take every precaution. It just bothers me that incidents that could indicate the presence of these battlefield munitions will be refered to as "WMD" and therefore strike fear in the hearts of people in Idaho for no apparent reason.
As clark pointed out, the US reports that it has largely (if not completely) destroyed it's chem/bio agents. However, since the US does NOT allow for independent inspections or verifications (even though the CWC treaty might present a legal demand for it depending on how it's interpreted) I don't think it's fair to say that anyone who questions whether or not the military is sincere or honest in those reports is just giving in to "conspiracy theory". It might be cynical, but it's not irrational to think the US still has such weapons.
It might be argued that the US could do itself a huge favor and bolster it's image by allowing for independent verification under the provisions of the CWC treaty. I'm not sure how it could hurt.