The Good News and the Bad News -- WMDs Finally Discovered in Iraq

To say that chlorine gas is a weapon of mass destruction is to say that every single country in the world has weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, it dilutes the term "weapons of mass destruction." Chlorine is used for commercial purposes in most industrialized countries. There are many industrial chemicals that could be used as a "weapon of mass destruction." Now if the weapon was specifically designed to efficiently disperse extremely large doses of highly concentrated chlorine gas over a large area, then I would consider it a weapon of mass destruction. However, if somebody drops a grenade into a truck that contains chlorine gas cylinders, I wouldn't really consider this a weapon of mass destruction. But I guess the UN has their own definitions, so we'll use those for now.

Ok, then using that definition, we could clearly say that Iraq had thousands of "weapons of mass destruction," (i.e., cylinders, portable tanks, and tank cars full of chlorine gas) before we ever entered IRAQ, which is contrary to the left arguments. Yet, the early reports from Iraq said that we found no weapons of mass destruction. Certainly we must have found some chlorine cylinders, cargo tanks, and tank cars with chlorine gas. Why then did we not declare at the beginning of the war that Iraq had WMD's in the form of chlorine gas? Chlorine gas has certainly been in IRAQ for several decades at least. It also means we have WMD's in the form of chlorine gas tank cars running all over the united states on the rails. One shot of an armor piercing bullet through those tank cars would create a very serious life threatening situation. But, I don't think it's necessary to argue whether these are WMD's. Your overall point that this is a dangerous situation for our troops is valid. In my mind the whold WMD debate is political jargon to get us off the real issues. Any weapon that kills and threatens the lives of human beings should be taken seriously, regardless of it's form or it's definition. This is a great article, but I don't think it's necessary for the media to focus on the term WMD.

I'm with kurtstack in this argument, you have to draw the line on weapons of mass destruction somewhere. Chlorine has an industrial use, and I do not believe using it as a weapon makes it a WMD, that is complete media hype. Now take mustard gas or nerve gas, that has absolutely no use except for a weapon. I mean if they got a hold of 10 tons of salt and dumped in a building of people and it crushed 20, are we going to call salt a WMD next?

Would that also mean that a nuclear bomb is not a WMD unless it is actually dropped?

Don't worry I get your point, I'm just playing devil advocate here. I believe we could even call the chlorine tankers WMD's even if they were never released if we could prove that it was IRAQ's intent to release them as weapons. I see your side of this, but clearly there are differing opinions on what a WMD is? Iran is collecting enriched uranium, which is not a WMD, but clearly if they intend to use it as a component of a weapon, we could then call it a WMD. I really believe we are saying the same thing. The gas or the radionuclides themselves are not the weapons. It's the way they are used that could make them WMD. We are on the same page now :) Sorry for beating that dead horse to death...

I tend to agree with jjsonp. I think we can all agree that a 250lb. incendiary bomb is not a weapon of mass destruction. Yet Dresden was destroyed and as many were killed as were killed at Hiroshima through the use of incendiaries. In one case it took one aircraft and one bomb and the other took thousands and several days, but the result was the same. The term wmd is nothing more than inaccurate hyperbole. Propaganda to spread fear among us....

"Weapon of Mass Destruction" doesn't mean "rare" or "uncommon." It means "a weapon with the capacity to indiscriminately kill large numbers of people."

In this sense, aren't guns also weapons of mass destruction?

I think a key characteristic between "weapons of mass destruction" and conventional weapons (guns or golf clubs) is specific targeting, and the tendency to impact civilians. With conventional weapons you use your weapon on a specific person or a relatively small area and they can be concentrated on military targets.

With WMD's you end of killings lots of people in a large area, with less ability to control the target.
Whereas with a gun, even a machine gun or hand-grenade, you aim it at a certain area and only people in that general area are at risk. You typically do not see a group of civilians a quarter of a mile away from the target injured.

I believe that one of the reason's why chemicals / gas was banned as a WMD was the tendency for clouds of poisonous gas to wander over the battlefieds in WWI, killing troops indiscriminately on both sides. So, you lose the ability to control the target of the weapon.

Killing civilians, and the wrong target is not considered "kosher." Killing military targets, and only military targets is a definition of war.

So for a proper war, you need to use the proper weapons and kill the proper targets. Anything else is just not civil.

...were almost certainly smuggled into Iraq or manufactured in country after the 2003 invasion.

Why "almost certainly"? Chlorine gas has industrial uses, one of which is simple water purification. Didn't Iraq purify water before the 2003 invasion? Didn't Iraq have any chemical industry before 2003?

hint: no good reason, yes, yes

Because Chlorine gas is highly reactive and corrosive storage is problematic.

Not problematic at all. Chlorine stored in a cylinder is neither highly reactive nor corrosive, and can be stored almost indefinitely without difficulty. A tiny amount of vapor is released from cylinders but this is not a problem as cylinders may be stored in ventilated areas or storage rooms with ventilation. It's not a problem storing chlorine. Handling chlorine is a problem.

Moreover, it's large number of industrial uses make it a compound largely unsuitable for hording.

I'm not sure what you mean here "largely unsuitable for hording". Cl is either piped or stored. There's no problem "hording" cylinders.

Thus, the storage of large quantities of Chlorine gas for long periods of time without use or deterioration is simultaneously unlikely and illogical.

Without use or deterioration? What does this mean? You can store it, you can use it, you can tie it in a knot, you can tie it in a bow, you can throw it over your shoulder like a Continental soldier.

Occam's razor would suggest that the gas was diverted from a normal industrial process shortly before use.

Could be, or not, but has nothing to do with Occam.