Chemical weapons are not WMDs


It would seem the key here is once again semantics rules over logic and education.

One fellow mentioned references... in academia there are a two valid of reference (source) types: Primary and Secondary.

A primary source is from an authority or expert in the area of expertise. The one with the relevant knowledge. This source does not require references, as it is the reference.

A secondary source would be a non-authority researcher/analyst. They reference primary source material.

In this case, the author of this article is a Primary Source.

Now, it would seem most of you have failed to comprehend the main point of the article. The fear factor from chemical weapons is not based on reality, but by fear mongering. Mass Hysteria over a ghost.

As I am also a "Primary Source" (I was a weapons specialist in the CAF). I also know a few things about EOD (Explosive Ordinance Disposal) and NBCW.

I myself have sat for days in NBCW gear, I myself have lived under the threat of attack with these weapons.

To be frank, I do not recall ever fearing them. I feared bombs, I feared shells and mortars, I feared madmen with guns... but never a chemical attack. Why? For exactly they reasons ascribed by the author. There is no need to. They are a propaganda weapon (trench warfare in WW1 is a very different scenario than the reality of your lives today).

As a wise man once said: All you have to fear is fear itself.

Thats is the real power of this type of weapon, and many of the people here are actually the ones pulling the trigger.

Get educated, then get smart.


Back to the forum


Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017