This comparison shows how Russia’s latest nuclear weapons dwarf America’s (and everyone else’s)

Saddam Hussein did have chemical weapons. I'm not sure what media Russia censors but do you need links to them?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...t/us-casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html

 

Which is largely started this. In Post 162 I even posted links where the Iraqi government turned over 2 bunkers full of chemical weapons, and informed them of more production sites and storage facilities that had been found since the Saddam government was overthrown. Which started all of this nonsense.

And still Illusion claims there were no chemical weapons.

This has gotten pathological. Even the Iraqi Government admits they had them. They even turned them over to the UN! And spent the next 4 years destroying them and their production facilities, only finishing the project a few months ago.

Yet the brain dead idiots still go on and on about there being no chemical weapons.

Hell, about 8 years ago even WikiLeaks got in a lot of heat because they released a huge cache of documents (believed to be part of the Bradley leak). And surprise of surprises, a lot of the documents talked about their being found and destroyed all over the country after the 2003 invasion.

https://www.wired.com/2010/10/wikileaks-show-wmd-hunt-continued-in-iraq-with-surprising-results/

Yet morons still insist there were never any found.

 

And most of us of my generation are more than aware that he actually used his weapons in 1991. But it was kept quiet for political reasons.

One of the most lasting images for those of us of the Gulf War generation is what became known as "Gulf War Syndrome". This malady has struck over 250,000 who deployed to the region in 1990-1991, and the symptoms are highly consistent with low level nerve gas exposure. And even though to this day the "Official" story is no chemical weapons were used, the fact that all along the front lines chemical detectors were going off even before combat started, and non-explosive "empty" shells and missiles were recovered in many locations.

And we have operated in the region now for over 25 years now, and "Gulf War Syndrome" vanished as mysteriously as it appeared. Funny, how all cases of it only happened from 1990-1991, but it has never been reported since then.

 

Except before the invasion, the UN already knew those bunkers existed and were already in the process of disposing the materials in them. Then we invaded and those bunkers fells into insurgent hands.

Also, none of those bunkers held weapons that were in any kind of real usable form. They were highly degraded. Hell, the insurgents who through them into IED's didn't even realize they were chemical rounds most the time.

 

Reference?

Once again, reference?

Degraded does not mean safe. Degraded generally means that the corrosive parts of the chemical weapons have started to eat through the casings or the explosives and propellants are no longer guaranteed to work. That does not mean that the chemical weapons are now magically turned into flower petals and rainbows.

And really, insurgents trying to use chemical weapons and not realize it? I would love to see a reference to that. Especially since there are large and obvious differences between the two. Not the least of which old chemical weapons when they degrade literally leack their chemicals. Touching them would be deadly to somebody not protected.

And an IED is generally a defused bomb or warhead, with a new fuse system put in it's place. I find it almost impossible that even the most stupid bomb maker would not realize when they pulled the fuse that there was something wrong about say a mustard gas warhead. Not least of which the fact that it would weigh different, and the contents would not be solid but a liquid.

 

Degraded means that they couldn't have been used by Saddam as a weapon. And there isn't really a difference between a HE 122mm howitzer shell and a chemical 122mm howitzer shell. You act like the insurgents acturally "fused" them. They usually just festooned them with det cord.

 

The Iraq mustard gas artillery shells discovered in Iraq according to the U.S. Army may have degraded some but was still lethal
but couldn't be fired from an artillery piece but the mustard gas was still good.

The USA just finished incinerating the last mustard gas artillery shells manufactured before and during WW ll on Johnston Atoll during the 1990's.

Johnston Atoll was where the U.S. military stored the really nasty WMD's that were so nasty they had to be kepts thousands on miles away in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.






Surplus Agent Orange from the Vietnam War 1978
Johnston Atoll

Was Johnston Atoll the worst duty station in the U.S. Army like the Marine Barracks at Gitmo was the worse duty station in the Marine Corps ???

https://www.cma.army.mil/about/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Steel_Box

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Chemical_Materials_Activity

 

So according to them a few Saudis come here do 911 and instead of going after them, we go to Iraq and look for WMD? I get it now.

 

The military mission was regime change.

The State Department mission was looking for WMD's and nation building.

Nation building is a liberal and neoconservative thing.

The U.S. military should never be used for nation building.

Let the Peace Corps do the nation building.

 

sounds about right to me.

 

Should add, all of the Saudi Al Qaeda terrorist were out of reach after 9-11-01 and were likely to busy with 72 virgins.

But the Bush administration did capture the mastermind of 9/11 in March of 2003, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) not Osama bin Laden (OBL) as everyone thought.

After the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and learning that KSM was the mastermind of 9/11... capturing OBL wasn't such a high priority, it just became a political PR thing.

The many faces of the mastermind of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.






KMS as a porn star



KMS while staying at the Hilton at Gitmo

 

I'm a tin hat wearer so I don't think any of them did jack squat. Don't like them but that doesn't make them guilty cause I don't like islam.

 

To win a war you first to have identify who the enemy is and then have to demonize the enemy.

No one has ever won a war using political correctness.

 

I'm a terrible hunt and peck typist so at times I use music to get my point across or speak for me.

 

So no reference.

And also the strange logical twist here, where first we have claimed there were no chemical weapons, then the claim that insurgents were using chemical weapons they found. Look, it can not be both.

BTW, all the reports I have ever read about chemical IEDs have them using chlorine gas, not mustard gas. Chlorine gas is the weapon of choice for low-tech improvised chemical weapons. They are super-simple to create, requiring only chemicals obtained in the cleaning section of your local supermarket.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-31847427

Saddam did not use chlorine gas, his preferences were for Sarin and Mustard. Chlorine weapons have a very short shelf-life, and have not been used for such for almost a century.

And Chlorine gas weapons would very obviously not be confused with a standard munition. The components are in a liquid state, and it would very obviously "slosh" inside of the casing.

Now please, in addition to the other references I have asked about, give us some for insurgents wrapping det cord around a munition believing it to be conventional and not chemical.

There have been reports early after the invasion of crude attempts to set off chemical munitions as IEDs, but I have never read a single report that indicated the perps were not aware it was not a chemical weapon.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/may/17/iraq.usa4

References, references, references. And no, chemical weapons are not harmless because they are "degraded". In fact, in most instances that has more to do with dispersal than the actual danger of the weapon. For example, dry powdered agents tend to "clump" after long storage, and do not spread as far because of that. But they are still just as deadly.

And for binary weapons, the danger (as has been seen in recovered weapons) is that the containment between the agents is breeched, and they combine while in storage. Hence, the "tar" like substance that makes people sick in weapons that have been found. The seal between the 2 components has been broken, and small amounts of the chemicals are combining to form the deadly agent.

 

The US was thinking about tsunami torpedoes with yields of 1000 megatons back in the 1950s.

Russia's tiny little 100 megaton torpedoes are a joke. But they might find a place in a museum for midgets and other undersized things.

 

Exactly! The Left will be among the first to wave the white flag and the right will betray our allies explaining that they didn't help us during WWII in the Normandy landing.

 

I agree, Putin the Poisoner every day saves the world from the nuclear disaster.

 

Yes, we know the Left is guilty of the US outdated technology (4 years of Trump didn't prevent it), the Left is guilty of Mexico refusing to pay for the wall, the Left is guilty of forcing Trump to make a speech which incited people to attack the Capitol, but how do you explain the fact that the United States spends more on national defense than China, India, Russia, United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Italy, and Australia — combined, and still our nuclear technology is outdated? How come Trump didn't change it?

 

I think you are harping on a bunch of things that are not remotely true.

For example you're making a big deal about a bunch of HYPOTHETICAL Russian nuclear weapons most certainly have never been deployed.

Finally calling Russia a "peacemaker" is insane.

 

Once again, showing how little you know.

You are aware that the largest nuke ever made and used was only around 58 megatons, right? Nobody made one larger than around 12 kilotons. Not megatons, kilotons.

The US never once thought of creating any kind of "Gigaton" nuclear weapon. Just the thought of one is absolutely absurd.

So once again, you simply make things up and try to talk about them, thinking you sound authoritative, meanwhile coming off like a buffoon.

But please, give us some references to the Gigaton US torpedo that was planned back in the 1950's.

 

What do you mean? The U.S. tested (as in detonated) nuclear weapons as large as 25 megatons.

By the way, Tsar Bomba when tested was 50 megatons. The 57 or 58 megaton figure was a result of improper U.S. estimates of its yield. Though it could've yielded 100 megatons if fired off to its full potential.

 

I would still love to see a reference for this "US Gigaton torpedo" from the 1950's.

Just because you say something, does not mean we are going to believe you.

 

I know this. I was discussing the claim of the US planning in the 1950's a "Gigaton torpedo".

Not that such was not possible, simply that somebody even thinking of making one is stupid in the extreme. And I have never seen a single reference ever that the US ever considered making a "Gigaton" warhead of any kind. Especially as it was known from the very earliest testing that underwater detonations greatly magnify the pressure waves and can cause even more damage. So the bombs can actually be smaller than that of an air or surface burst.

 

~ You could be right. However I believe it is V. Putin who has a " size issue". It just makes sense.