Nice candy coating but the reality is far worse then this fellow would lead many to believe. If these agents were not so dangerous there would never have been a move to ban them in the first place. Let's see, a single grenade has a kill radius of 5 meters (pretty large when compared to a single rifle round) but has it ever been banned as a weapon to be used by NATO countries? No. A single launch of an MLRS has a kill radius of an entire map grid for unprotected troops. Has it ever been banned for use by NATO? No. NATO does however ban weapons and ammunition on the basis of how humane their use is. One change they made was to the original design of the AR-15. It had a much worse round tumble when it was first introduced and was considered inhumane because of the damage it caused without necessarily killing a person. Another notable example is the Neutron Bomb. Also banned for humanitarian reasons. Another point I think he failed to make was concerning Nuclear devices. He paints a picture much like putting out a fire on your body. Rather then stop drop and roll it's stop drop and sit, for two minutes. Then magically all of the damage is over. I guess he never really studied the effects of radiation poisoning but to this day the people in and around ground zero are still dying and passing on mutated genes from the bombings in Japan. This is medical fact, not a Hollywood movie. While most NBC weapons have never been employed very effectively in an offensive posture during a military engagement they have nonetheless been used quite effectively against civilians. Case in point are the Kurdish towns that disappeared under Hussain's war against the Kurds. That's right, entire towns of civilians wiped out by chemical weapons. I can appreciate this fellows backlash against the media hype but to candy coat these weapons is a mistake. Anyone wanting real information on chemical weapons and their effects would be better off to study material in print and the internet published by the scientists themselves rather then either of the extremes of the media or their obvious detractors.
|