Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Elinda wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
A smart bomb is a thousand times more likely to kill an innocent bystander than injecting the target with a nerve toxin. Delivery systems aren't payloads. See the logical fallacy with your argument yet?
One of these requires a close encounter with the target, putting the delivery agent in substantially more danger and is also impractical in too many scenarios to be worthy of serious discussion. I'll let you figure out which.
Someone just changed the argument mid-stream. I'll let you figure out who.
I didn't change the argument at all. He presented an extremely isolated example of chemical weapon use that contradicted the claim that such weapons are massively indiscriminate when compared with conventional options, and I pointed out the general impracticality of that example. The only counterpoint that followed was "@#%^stick".
A traditional explosive doesn't discriminate any better than a canister of gas. You ignored that bit of information. Injection by ricin isn't anymore isolated than gassing by sarin - both are rare, both require some deal of chemistry to pull off.
Getting blowed up by an IED could be just as common as getting blowed up by a sniper bullet.
However you decided to compare the sniper bullet to the canister of sarin.
Even an IED is isolated in its impact. Sarin, not so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin_gas_attack_on_the_Tokyo_subway
Quote:
In five coordinated attacks, the perpetrators released sarin on several lines of the Tokyo Metro, killing thirteen people, severely injuring fifty and causing temporary vision problems for nearly a thousand others.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin
Quote:
1988: Over the span of two days in March, the ethnic Kurd city of Halabja in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded with chemical and cluster bombs, which included sarin, in the Halabja poison gas attack. An estimated 5,000 people died almost instantly.[21]
The suggestion that typical methods of delivering Sarin gas are any less or equally discriminate than conventional weapons is ludicrous at best, but keep on keepin' on with the false premises. I guarantee that international concern over Assad's potential use of chemcal weapons is based on his ability to deliver them to mass quantities of people, and not at all based in some theoretical isolated incident proposed by some idiot on a gaming forum.